Schematic diagram of phantom body ((a) top view and (b) side view). (c) Schematic diagram of the phantom mounted on a rotatable platform. (d) Picture of the prototype version of phantom developed inhouse.
Difference between the actual and set angles when the phantom was rotated to different angles in x, y and z directions by three different users.
Mean errors (with 1σ) in translational and rotational directions when the imaging and registration is performed under various possible combinations using XVI system.
(a) Reference and verification images of the phantom in (i) axial, (ii) sagittal, and (iii) coronal planes for one of the positional offsets (Set9) listed in Table III . (b) Coregistered reference and verification images of the phantom in (i) axial, (ii) sagittal, (iii) coronal planes for the same study. Verification images are reconstructed using high resolution reconstruction algorithm and registered with reference image using gray value registration method.
Mean difference (with 1σ) between set and XVI calculated positional error values in all six directions for different image reconstruction and image registration combination for all offsets listed in Table III .
Mean residual errors (with 1σ) in translational and rotational directions for corrections performed through HexaPOD couch for the offsets shown in Table III .
Preset rotational offsets set by different users to verify the rotational accuracy of the phantom.
Key characteristics of various CBCT image acquisition protocols used in the study.
Translational and rotational offsets used in the study to test the accuracy offsets predicted by XVI software.
Expanded uncertainties in phantom rotational offsets measured when three different users set the phantom to preset rotational offsets.
Positional error values from XVI after verifying the phantom position on the treatment couch.
Uncertainties resulting from different components in the XVI imaging and registration process.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...