Comparison of difference between applicators depending on field size (Diff. (%) * was calculated using equation 2).

<p>Comparison of difference between applicators depending on field size (Diff. (%) * was calculated using <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0324722#pone.0324722.e023" target="_blank">equation 2</a>).</p>

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Su Chul Han (2009233) (author)
Other Authors:	Min Cheol Han (9727813) (author), Jihun Kim (10091) (author), Heerim Nam (22057316) (author), Jin Sung Kim (679262) (author), Kwangwoo Park (9727819) (author)
Published:	2025
Subjects:	Biophysics Microbiology Cell Biology Molecular Biology Pharmacology Biotechnology Cancer Infectious Diseases Virology Physical Sciences not elsewhere classified size electron cone consistently higher across 5 &# 8201 depth dose comparisons based general applicator indirect tps calculations commercial tps combined measured field sizes including beam profiles dose distributions obtained calculating monitor units relative output factors output factors monitor units field sizes dose distributions beam profiles general applicators dose calculation relative ofs xlink "> water phantom study aims results demonstrate reliable method performed using passing rate natively supported diamond detector cerrobend cutout approach offers 0 %. 0 %,
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Comparison of difference between applicators depending on field size (Diff. (%) * was calculated using equation 2).

Similar Items