English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We compared the results of absorbed dose measurements made using the TRS-398, TG-51, and DIN protocols and their associated uncertainties to reduce discrepancies in measurement results made using the three protocols. This experiment was carried out on two Varian Medical linear accelerators with 4, 6, 10, and 20 MV photon energies using FC65-G and CC15 (cylindrical) and NACP-02-type (plane-parallel) ion chambers in water phantoms. The radiation beam quality index (Q) was determined from the measurement of percentage depth dose. It was used to determine the photon beam quality factor required with the ionization chamber calibration factor to convert the ion chamber reading into the absorbed dose to water. For the same beam quality, the TRS-398/TG-51 varied from 0.01% to 1.8%, whereas the ratio for TRS-398/DIN 6800-2 varied from 0.1% to 0.88%. The chamber-to-chamber variation was 0.09% in TRS-398/TG-51, 0.03% in TRS-398/DIN, and 0.02% in TG-51/DIN 6800-2. The expanded uncertainties (k = 1) were 1.24 and 1.25 when using TRS-398 and DIN 6800-2, respectively. Using the aforementioned three protocols, the results showed little chamber-to-chamber variation and uncertainty in absorbed dose measurements. The estimated uncertainties when using cylindrical ion chambers were slightly lower than those measured using plane-parallel chambers. The results are important in facilitating comparisons of absorbed dose measurements when using the three protocols.

Analysis of Uncertainties in Clinical High-Energy Photon Beam Calibrations Using Absorbed Dose Standards