PubMed · 13666921
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J KIJLSTRA. 1959-05-16. [Autokinetic movements].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13666921/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A great deal of progress has been made in the studies of fruiting body development and social gliding in Myxocococcus xanthus in the past few years. This includes identification of the bone fide C-signal and a receptor for type IV pili, and development of a model for the mechanism of adventurous gliding motility. It is anticipated that the next few years will see even more progress as the complete genome sequence is available and genomic and proteomic tools are applied to the study of M. xanthus social behaviors.
PURPOSE: To quantitatively compare a scanning liquid ion chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) and an amorphous silicon flat panel (aSi) EPID with portal film in clinical applications using measures of landmark visibility and treatment review accuracy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Six radiation oncologists viewed 39 electronic portal images (EPIs) from the SLIC-EPID, 36 EPIs from the aSi-EPID, and portal films of each of these treatment fields. The physicians rated the clarity of anatomic landmarks in the portal images, and the scores were compared between EPID and film. Nine hundred portal image reviews were performed. EPID and film portal images were acquired with known setup errors in either phantom or cadaver treatments. Physicians identified the errors visually in portal films and with computerized analysis for EPID. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between film and SLIC-EPID in ratings of landmark clarity. Eleven of 12 landmarks were more visible in aSi-EPID than in film. Translational setup errors were identified with an average accuracy of 2.5 mm in film, compared to 1.5 mm with SLIC-EPID and 1.3 mm with aSi-EPID. CONCLUSIONS: Both EPIDs are clinically viable replacements for film, but aSi-EPID represents a significant advancement in image quality over film.