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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2014-07, Vol.15 (4), p.93-104 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 |