{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04002760524499655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01518288474810214, 'mean_word_length': 4.894308943089431, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparison of dose accuracy between 2D array detectors for pre-treatment IMRT QA].

The dosimetric properties between various 2D array detectors were compared and were evaluated with regard to the accuracy in absolute dose and dose distributions for clinical treatment fields. We used to check the dose accuracy: 2D array detectors; MapCHECK (Sun Nuclear), EPID (Varian Medical Systems), EPID-based dosimetry (EPIDose, Sun Nuclear), COMPASS (IBA) and conventional system; EDR2 film (Eastman Kodak), Exradin A-14SL ion chamber (0.016 cc, Standard Imaging). First, we compared the dose linearity, dose rate dependence, and output factor between the 2D array detectors. Next, the accuracy of the absolute dose and dose distributions were evaluated for clinical fields. All detector responses for the dose linear were in agreement within 1%, and the dose rate dependence and output factor agreed within a standard deviation of ±1.2%, except for EPID. This is because EPID is fluence distributions. In all the 2D array detectors, the point dose agreed within 5% with treatment planning system (TPS). Pass rates of each detector for TPS were more than 97% in the gamma analysis (3 mm/3%). EPIDose was in a good agreement with TPS. All 2D array detectors used in this study showed almost the same accuracy for clinical fields. EPIDose has better resolution than other 2D array detectors and thus this is expected for dose distributions with a small field.