Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA

We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2014-07, Vol.15 (4), p.93-104
Hauptverfasser: Huang, Jessie Y., Pulliam, Kiley B., McKenzie, Elizabeth M., Followill, David S., Kry, Stephen F.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 104
container_issue 4
container_start_page 93
container_title Journal of applied clinical medical physics
container_volume 15
creator Huang, Jessie Y.
Pulliam, Kiley B.
McKenzie, Elizabeth M.
Followill, David S.
Kry, Stephen F.
description We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)‐calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS‐calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma anal
doi_str_mv 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4690
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2287887683</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2287887683</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4343-77074dd4ae9bef4545ce16106fa9e1f796423d724e53a31ac2fdbe9fd9541a623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLAzEURoMoVqt7VxJwPTWvSSbLUqoWWkSp65BOEkmZacZkRum_d_pQ3Lm6D879uBwAbjAaYUzQ_VqXdTP6xLlnI8YlOgEXOCc8kxKz0z_9AFymtEYI44IW52BAcoIElfICTKfO2bJNMDiYGt16XcFoU6i61ocN1BsDN8EnC_vhXde17le62iafoAsRzhavS_gyvgJnTlfJXh_rELw9TJeTp2z-_DibjOdZySijmRBIMGOYtnJlHctZXlrMMeJOS4udkJwRagRhNqeaYl0SZ1ZWOiNzhjUndAjuDrlNDB-dTa1ahy72DyVFSCGKQvCC9hQ6UGUMKUXrVBN9reNWYaR23tTem9p7Uztv_cntMbhb1db8HvyI6gF-AL58Zbf_BqrxZEEQkpR-AzUKejY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2287887683</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Huang, Jessie Y. ; Pulliam, Kiley B. ; McKenzie, Elizabeth M. ; Followill, David S. ; Kry, Stephen F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jessie Y. ; Pulliam, Kiley B. ; McKenzie, Elizabeth M. ; Followill, David S. ; Kry, Stephen F.</creatorcontrib><description>We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)‐calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS‐calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma analysis is sensitive to these parameters. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.56.Fc</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4690</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25207399</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Digitization ; gamma index ; Gamma Rays ; Humans ; IMRT QA ; measurement noise ; measurement resolution ; Neoplasms - radiotherapy ; Noise ; Quality Assurance, Health Care ; Radiometry - methods ; Radiometry - standards ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - standards ; Sensors ; Signal-To-Noise Ratio ; Software ; Software packages</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014-07, Vol.15 (4), p.93-104</ispartof><rights>2014 The Authors.</rights><rights>2014. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4343-77074dd4ae9bef4545ce16106fa9e1f796423d724e53a31ac2fdbe9fd9541a623</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4343-77074dd4ae9bef4545ce16106fa9e1f796423d724e53a31ac2fdbe9fd9541a623</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1120%2Fjacmp.v15i4.4690$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1120%2Fjacmp.v15i4.4690$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207399$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jessie Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulliam, Kiley B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Followill, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kry, Stephen F.</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)‐calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS‐calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma analysis is sensitive to these parameters. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.56.Fc</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Digitization</subject><subject>gamma index</subject><subject>Gamma Rays</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>IMRT QA</subject><subject>measurement noise</subject><subject>measurement resolution</subject><subject>Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care</subject><subject>Radiometry - methods</subject><subject>Radiometry - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - standards</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Signal-To-Noise Ratio</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Software packages</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLAzEURoMoVqt7VxJwPTWvSSbLUqoWWkSp65BOEkmZacZkRum_d_pQ3Lm6D879uBwAbjAaYUzQ_VqXdTP6xLlnI8YlOgEXOCc8kxKz0z_9AFymtEYI44IW52BAcoIElfICTKfO2bJNMDiYGt16XcFoU6i61ocN1BsDN8EnC_vhXde17le62iafoAsRzhavS_gyvgJnTlfJXh_rELw9TJeTp2z-_DibjOdZySijmRBIMGOYtnJlHctZXlrMMeJOS4udkJwRagRhNqeaYl0SZ1ZWOiNzhjUndAjuDrlNDB-dTa1ahy72DyVFSCGKQvCC9hQ6UGUMKUXrVBN9reNWYaR23tTem9p7Uztv_cntMbhb1db8HvyI6gF-AL58Zbf_BqrxZEEQkpR-AzUKejY</recordid><startdate>201407</startdate><enddate>201407</enddate><creator>Huang, Jessie Y.</creator><creator>Pulliam, Kiley B.</creator><creator>McKenzie, Elizabeth M.</creator><creator>Followill, David S.</creator><creator>Kry, Stephen F.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201407</creationdate><title>Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA</title><author>Huang, Jessie Y. ; Pulliam, Kiley B. ; McKenzie, Elizabeth M. ; Followill, David S. ; Kry, Stephen F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4343-77074dd4ae9bef4545ce16106fa9e1f796423d724e53a31ac2fdbe9fd9541a623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Digitization</topic><topic>gamma index</topic><topic>Gamma Rays</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>IMRT QA</topic><topic>measurement noise</topic><topic>measurement resolution</topic><topic>Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care</topic><topic>Radiometry - methods</topic><topic>Radiometry - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - standards</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Signal-To-Noise Ratio</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Software packages</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Jessie Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pulliam, Kiley B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenzie, Elizabeth M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Followill, David S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kry, Stephen F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Jessie Y.</au><au>Pulliam, Kiley B.</au><au>McKenzie, Elizabeth M.</au><au>Followill, David S.</au><au>Kry, Stephen F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2014-07</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>93</spage><epage>104</epage><pages>93-104</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)‐calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS‐calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma analysis is sensitive to these parameters. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.56.Fc</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>25207399</pmid><doi>10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4690</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-9914
ispartof Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2014-07, Vol.15 (4), p.93-104
issn 1526-9914
1526-9914
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2287887683
source Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Algorithms
Digitization
gamma index
Gamma Rays
Humans
IMRT QA
measurement noise
measurement resolution
Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Noise
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Radiometry - methods
Radiometry - standards
Radiotherapy Dosage
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods
Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - standards
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods
Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - standards
Sensors
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Software
Software packages
title Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T21%3A51%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20spatial%20resolution%20and%20noise%20on%20gamma%20analysis%20for%20IMRT%20QA&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Huang,%20Jessie%20Y.&rft.date=2014-07&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=93&rft.epage=104&rft.pages=93-104&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4690&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2287887683%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2287887683&rft_id=info:pmid/25207399&rfr_iscdi=true