Abstract:Background: A new quality assurance and control method for electrometers using a new current source, different from the method published in the guidelines for electrometers, has been reported. This current source uses dry batteries and exhibits excellent performance in terms of voltage, temperature, and time characteristics. The electrometer sensitivity coefficient can be calculated by comparing the sensitivity of one electrometer with that of another on the electrometer calibration coefficient that has been calibrated by a calibration laboratory in advance in both methods. The guideline method requires two or more sets of ionization chambers and electrometers in the facility. In contrast, our method does not use ionization chambers; therefore, the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer can be measured in any facility. This study compared the uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity factor calculated using the new current source method (current method) with that calculated using a linear accelerator (LINAC) and ionization chambers (LINAC method) described in the electrometer guidelines. Method: In this study, we used a current source that we invented previously by Kawaguchi Electric Works in Japan. The sensitivity ratios of the electrometers were measured with three manufacture's electrometers. The electrometer sensitivity factor was calculated by multiplying the electrometer calibration coefficient. The ionization chamber was 30013 (PTW), and the current source was the current obtained from 10 MV TrueBeam X-rays under calibration conditions. The mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The time required to set up the ionization chamber for calculating the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer was also measured. The accuracy was confirmed by calculating the expanded uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity coefficients. Results: The LINAC method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.072%. The gross time of the LINAC method was approximately 110 min. The current method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.0055% and took less than half the time taken by the LINAC method (35 min) because there was no waiting time for the ionization chamber to be set up and the applied voltage to stabilize under calibration conditions. The expanded uncertainties of the electrometer calibration coefficients were 0.36% and 0.36%, respectively. Conclusion: The new cross-comparison method for electrometer sensitivity factors using a current source is more efficient and useful than the linear accelerator method described in the guidelines; furthermore, this method ensured accuracy for quality assurance and control of electrometers.

Impact of the measurement conditions and compression paddle on mammography dosimeter response

Quantitative assessment of signal and noise properties of mammography digital detectors

Uncertainty evaluation of non-invasive multi-parameter detector measurements in quality assurance of diagnostic radiology

Assessment of four dose calculation algorithms using IAEA-TECDOC-1583 with medium dependency correction factor (K med ) application

Technical note: Visual, rapid, scintillation point dosimetry for in vivo MV photon beam radiotherapy treatments

Impact of Measurement Conditions and Design Features of IBA Detectors on the Small Radiation Fields Output Factors

Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x-ray microbeam radiotherapy

Dosimetry evaluation of photon beam profile characteristics for different treatment parameters of quality assurance

Assessment of Uncertainties Associated with Monte Carlo-based Personalized Dosimetry in Clinical CT Examinations

Dosimetric impact of calibration coefficients determined using linear accelerator photon and electron beams for ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit

Comparison of human observer impression of X-ray fluoroscopy and angiography image quality with technical changes to image quality

Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM

Computational evaluation of the bucky components influence on the estimation of normalized glandular dose in digital mammography

Investigation of Exposure Factors for Various Breast Composition and Thicknesses in Digital Screening Mammography Related to Breast Dose

A multicentre and multi-national evaluation of the accuracy of quantitative Lu-177 SPECT/CT imaging performed within the MRTDosimetry project

Performance evaluation of six digital mammography systems

Physical and dosimetric characterisation of different Contrast-Enhanced digital mammographic systems: A multicentric study

Microdosimetry of a clinical carbon-ion pencil beam at MedAustron -- Part 1: experimental characterization

Challenges for the Implementation of Primary Standard Dosimetry in Proton Minibeam Radiation Therapy

A dosimetric study of occupational exposure during computed tomography procedures

[Verification of Response Uncertainty in Electrometers through Cross-Comparison with a Novel Current Source: A Comparative Study with Guidelines for Electrometers Used in Radiation Therapy Dosimeters]