Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, “An analysis of variance tests for normality (complete samples),” Biometrika 52, 591611 (1965).
2.P. Royston, “Approximating the Shapiro–Wilk W-test for non-normality,” Stat. Comput. 2, 117119 (1992).
3.I. M. Chakravarti, R. G. Laha, and J. Roy, Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1967), Vol. 1.
4.L. A. DeWerd, S. D. Davis, L. J. Bartol, and F. Grenzow, “Ionization chamber instrumentation,” in Clinical Dosimetry Measurements in Radiotherapy, edited by D. W. O. Rogers and J. E. Cygler (Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin, 2009).
5.B. Hooten, private communication (November 17, 2014).
6.G. S. Ibbott, F. H. Attix, T. W. Slowey, D. P. Fontenla, and M. L. Rozenfeld, “Uncertainty of calibrations at the accredited dosimetry calibration laboratories,” Med. Phys. 24, 12491254 (1997).
7.G. Fasano and A. Franceschini, “A multidimensional version of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 225, 155170 (1987).
8.M. R. McEwen, L. A. DeWerd, G. S. Ibbott, D. S. Followill, D. W. O. Rogers, S. M. Seltzer, and J. P. Seuntjens, “Addendum to the AAPM’s TG–51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams,” Med. Phys. 41, 041501(20pp.) (2014).
9. IAEA, Calibration of Reference Dosimeters for External Beam Radiotherapy, Technical Report Series Vol. 469 (IAEA, Vienna, 2009).
10.G. Bass, R. Thomas, and J. Pearce, “The calibration of parallel-plate electron ionization chambers at NPL for use with the IPEM 2003 code of practice: Summary data,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, N115N124 (2009).
11.B. R. Muir, M. R. McEwen, and D. W. O. Rogers, “Beam quality conversion factors for parallel-plate ionization chambers in MV photon beams,” Med. Phys. 39, 16181631 (2012).
12.B. R. Muir, M. R. McEwen, and D. W. O. Rogers, “Determination of relative ion chamber calibrations coefficients from depth-ionization measurements in clinical electron beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 59535969 (2014).
13.B. R. Muir and M. R. McEwen, “Can Farmer-type ionization chambers be used to improve the accuracy of low-energy electron beam reference dosimetry? (abstract),” Med. Phys. 41, 109 (2014).
14.M. R. McEwen, “Measurement of ionization chamber absorbed dose kQ factors in megavoltage photon beams,” Med. Phys. 37, 21792193 (2010).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



To analyze absorbed dose calibration coefficients, , measured at accredited dosimetry calibration laboratories (ADCLs) for client ionization chambers to study (i) variability among coefficients for chambers of the same type calibrated at each ADCL to investigate ion chamber volume fluctuations and chamber manufacturing tolerances; (ii) equivalency of ion chamber calibration coefficients measured at different ADCLs by intercomparing coefficients for chambers of the same type; and (iii) the long-term stability of coefficients for different chamber types by investigating repeated chamber calibrations.

Large samples of coefficients for several chamber types measured over the time period between 1998 and 2014 were obtained from the three ADCLs operating in the United States. These are analyzed using various graphical and numerical statistical tests for the four chamber types with the largest samples of calibration coefficients to investigate (i) and (ii) above. Ratios of calibration coefficients for the same chamber, typically obtained two years apart, are calculated to investigate (iii) above and chambers with standard deviations of old/new ratios less than 0.3% meet stability requirements for accurate reference dosimetry recommended in dosimetry protocols.

It is found that coefficients for a given chamber type compared among different ADCLs may arise from differing probability distributions potentially due to slight differences in calibration procedures and/or the transfer of the primary standard. However, average coefficients from different ADCLs for given chamber types are very close with percent differences generally less than 0.2% for Farmer-type chambers and are well within reported uncertainties.

The close agreement among calibrations performed at different ADCLs reaffirms the Calibration Laboratory Accreditation Subcommittee process of ensuring ADCL conformance with National Institute of Standards and Technology standards. This study shows that coefficients measured at different ADCLs are statistically equivalent, especially considering reasonable uncertainties. This analysis of coefficients also allows identification of chamber types that can be considered stable enough for accurate reference dosimetry.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd