Talk:Medical physics

The new DMP degree

I think the ABR will start to offer the new Doctor of Medical Physics degree in approximately 5 years (?). The article only talked about the new residency requirement but none of the DMP stuff, can someone post more information on that please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physinmed (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The American Board of Radiology does not grant degrees. At present I am aware of only a single CAMPEP-accredited graduate program offering the DMP option (Vanderbilt). This information could certainly be integrated into the page, however. Eclobb2 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As

As a medical physicist I'm slightly horrified by the claim that "physicist" is a misnomer. In the UK to practise as a medical physicist you must have an acredited masters degree in physics (or equivalent). It far from unusual for medical physicists to have physics degrees, physics masters or phd's in physics. In fact it is almost universal here.

Feel free to change it. With your credentials you probably know more about the field than any other Wikipedia contributor. JFW | T@lk 13:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree - in the UK Medical Physics refers to the application of physics in medicine. I've reverted the article back to the version as of 23 October. Medical engineering is a field in its own right. The changes made to the article since then seem to reflect a personal POV. In the UK, medical physicists are encompassed by the protected designation of 'Clinical Scientist', and under the new grading structure (Agenda for Change) that is being instigated in the UK as I write, the job titles of national profiles for these jobs have (Medical Physics) tagged to the end. --Fizzy 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. This guy is the former head of the department of Medical Physics at University College London - one of the largest such departments in the UK. He is an FRS, and is about to go off and be the Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). He has no medical physics MSc. I would consider myself a medical physicist too and my first degree is in electrical and electronic engineering, with a PhD in medical physics. Drkirkby 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

External links

Please do not put clickable links in the middle of an article. I've moved them down to the external links section, which is the appropriate place for external links. Also, remember that the goal here is to write an encyclopedic article about this topic, not to provide a web directory for related organizations, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

?

I'm always nervous about anonymous editors (or any editor, for that matter) changing just a number in an article. Does anyone know whether this is correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, 2012 is for the regular ABR. 2014 is for the residencies.--Zereshk (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Prose on the Over Supply of Medical Physicist in North America

Within the United States of America many training programs falsely advertise that there is a shortage of medical physicists. This is an unfounded claim. I cite two publications that elucidate why no shortage exists within the United States of America. 76.93.189.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Do you have any more recent references? Both of those articles are pretty out of date (more than 10 years old). Wantdouble (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The above publications are definitely out-of-date. At present there is a definite shortage of experienced and ABR-certified medical physicists. Salaries have been steadily rising in part due to this shortage, as shown by the AAPM salary surveys from the last several years. On the other hand, at the present time it is often difficult for new graduates in this field to land a first job, and there is a severe shortage of residencies. All in all, the claim that there is a glut of medical physicists is too broad. I'm going to remove the "shortage" remarks from the article pending more recent data. 141.217.223.53 (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to say these articles are outdated and therefore untrue. Is there a legitimate reference that says there is a shortage of medical physicists in the United States?

As supporting evidence, consider that the current (12/14/2009) professional medical physicist organization in the United States, named the AAPM, lists jobs posted from 09/09/2009 to 12/08/2009. Of the 48 listed jobs, 20 are for residency positions with another 6 of the positions for jobs outside the USA. That leaves 22 = 48-26 "potential" full time employment positions within the USA. In short there are lots of training spots and certainly no evidence of a shortage in supply. In fact very few of the remaining 22 full time job requirements request a medical physicist. Finally, note that IP address 141.217.223.53 is for Wayne State University; this is an academic training program for medical physics and not a potential employer. 76.93.189.159 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm merely a student at Wayne State who is currently investigating the job market. I have no reason to mislead anyone.

I wish you the best of luck in finding work. Remember that the typical person gets 1 interview for every 100 applications sent out.

Thanks for wishing me luck. But what is your source for your statistic? As I've said, it's true that first-time jobs are currently hard to get -- though that was NOT true a few years ago -- but most recent graduates I've spoken to have not had THAT much trouble landing a first job.

Second, I stand by my earlier comments. The time at which your cited articles were written obviously has a direct bearing on their current relevance. And yes, there are references describing the current shortage of medical physicists (at least those with experience). For example (in no particular order):

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=MPHYA6000035000004001167000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no

I recognize that the editorial article has the word "shortage" appearing in it several times. However, I did not find any studies by the authors or anyone else supporting this statement. Could it be that no such study exists? Now that I think about it, I could say that there is a shortage of people selling bridges. Would YOU like to buy a bridge?

Not buying any bridges here, but that pertains to both sides of this issue. What reason do you have for dismissing the author's claims and embracing those of articles written over a decade ago? If you have been having a bad time personally in your job search, I can sympathize, but personal experiences do not constitute a statistical overview of a situation.

76.93.189.159 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8680751537l4020/

Direct quote from the article: "In the United States, there are currently more radiation oncology based medical physics positions than qualified physicists."

Yes, that's exactly my point. There are more POSITIONS than there are qualified physicists to FILL them.

http://healthcareers.about.com/b/2009/07/22/medical-physicists-careers.htm

Blog comment direct quote: "My hubby is a junior medical physicist, and let me tell you, it is not easy to get a job these days even in this profession. The so called shortage is theoretical… yeah, you read about, not experience it. It was true years ago, not now."

Again, anecdotes do not substitute for statistics. However, I've already pointed out that junior physics jobs are indeed harder to come by than they were a couple of years ago, when master's and Ph.D. students were often getting multiple job offers before even graduating.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/jobcenter/healthcare/stories/DN-h1medphysicist_21emp.ART.State.Edition1.8bd5b64.html

I have met and dined with all of the individuals mentioned in this article... they are misleading you. By all means do the research by calling them up and asking for a job.

Sorry, but one person's individual claims cannot substitute for solid source material. You need to provide up-to-date sources demonstrating your remark that supply has historically outpaced demand in this field. Simply claiming that the authors of my sources are lying doesn't wash. It almost seems as if you're dismissing all these sources I'm providing on the basis of some conspiracy theory.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2009/08/31/story8.html

Direct quote: "Tuition is $25,000 a year for the medical physics program and $17,500 annually for the medical dosimetry programs." Limited time offer - I will sell you a diploma for $10,000.

I'm not sure I see your point here. How does this debunk the article?

Moreover, the fact that salaries for medical physicists have been rising monotonically for the past several years is evidence that the demand is still there. This can be verified by looking at the most recent AAPM salary survey. Why would employers need to lure medical physicists with salaries well into the six-figure range if there were hordes of qualified people competing for every job? That doesn't jibe with the basic principle of supply and demand.

Your argument based on job advertisements on the AAPM website is unconvincing, to put it mildly. It assumes that all employers advertise every available position on that website. That is hardly the case. Advertisements cost money, and many employers find that they can fill positions through basic networking within the field. In particular, junior-level positions are almost never advertised anywhere.

It is true that there are typically more jobs available than advertised...so how far up do you want to scale those 22 jobs?

By AT LEAST a factor of ten. Just look at the job postings here:

http://www.mdphysics.com/jobs/

There's generally at least one new position opening per day, and even these generally don't include junior physicist jobs (though a few appear from time to time). Just once glance alone at the above website debunks your claims, especially when we keep in mind that this field produces few graduates to begin with (a couple hundred per year, if memory serves). For experienced physicists the job market is excellent. The hard part is getting that first job or residency, and I've conceded that from the beginning.

As I stated earlier, entry-level positions and especially residencies are indeed somewhat difficult to land right now. A couple of years ago it was very easy to get an entry-level position, but newly-graduating students now need to look harder. Those who graduate from CAMPEP-accredited programs, and especially those who have completed a residency, are at an advantage.

By all means go into a residency...because a getting a Ph.D. is not enough training?

You can get a residency without getting a Ph.D. first. Some residencies require applicants to have a Ph.D., but most I've looked at do not.

All in all, your comments regarding the glut of medical physicist are obviously incorrect, as can be seen by looking at the references above. I'm deleting those comments again until you can provide better evidence. 141.217.223.53 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"... entry-level positions and especially residencies are indeed somewhat difficult to land right now." logically implies that there is no shortage.

There is no shortage of positions for medical physicists with a few years of experience and especially with ABR certification.

Claiming a "shortage" is repeating the mistakes made by the NSF as pointed out in a New York Times article. [1]. I will borrow a quote from this New York Times article regarding a shortage of physicists "The prediction, say many young physicists, was wildly inaccurate and self-serving, intended mainly to nudge Congress into providing more financing for the agency." [2]

Next I cite a "Nature" article entitled "In which the mythical scientist shortage comes under scrutiny"[3]. This article says we are overproducing scientists.

In a testimonial before congress the Vice President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Michael S. Teitelbaum, is recorded on public record as saying [4]

"First, no one who has come to the question with an open mind has been able to find any objective data suggesting general “shortages” of scientists and engineers. The RAND Corporation has conducted several studies of this subject; its conclusions go further than my summary above, saying that not only could they not find any evidence of shortages, but that instead the evidence is more suggestive of surpluses."

Teitelbaum goes on to say

"Fifth, the postdoc population, which has grown very rapidly in U.S. universities and is recruited increasingly from abroad, looks more like a pool of low-cost research lab workers with limited career prospects than a high-quality training program for soon-to-be academic researchers. Indeed, if the truth be told---only a very small percentage of those in the current postdoc pool have any realistic prospects of gaining a regular faculty position."

"Sixth, rapid increases in Federal funding for scientific research and education is more likely than not to further destabilize career paths for junior scientists. Under the current structure, the effect is substantial growth in “slots” for PhD students and postdocs to conduct the supported research, but only limited increases in the numbers of career positions..."

The discerning reader will ask, "What is the difference between a 'scientist' and 'medical physicist'? What is the difference between a 'postdoctoral fellowship' and a 'residency'?"

I'm afraid you've just tackled a straw man. I don't dispute for a minute that there is, for the most part, an oversupply of scientists in the US, including NON-MEDICAL physicists. But it's illogical to assume that this shortage applies to medical physicists as well. Medical jobs in general tend to be in high demand and relatively unaffected by recession. The difference between a "medical physicist" and a "scientist" is actually quite similar to the difference between a "physician" and a "scientist." Is there a poor job market for physicians, nurses, etc., just because these fields require scientific training?

In any event, it's quite clear that you're not basing any of your conclusions about the medical physics job market on up-to-date sources, but are merely finding reasons to summarily dismiss the sources I'm providing ("they're misleading you") while appealing to unsourced (and rather fallacious) arguments. This goes against Wikipedia policy, which does not allow for "original research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR If you want to compromise, we can each include recent sources backing up our respective positions along with appropriate text; however, you're going to have to find some sources to offset mine, which you are unfortunately dismissing with handwaving. I'll leave the content as is for a time in order to give you time to back it up (and also because I'm very busy with school). Again, it's my view that the sources I've already provided -- particularly this one -- http://www.mdphysics.com/jobs/ -- demonstrate that the job market is quite good for experienced medical physicists.

Published articles were cited. Current evidence was provided as a rebuttal to a statement that the references are outdated. www.mdphysics.com is a blog and not a valid reference. No reference provides a study showing the shortage of medical physicists. 76.93.189.159 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish you success in finding work.

Thank you, and same to you. 141.217.223.53 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose removing all of the text referring to the supply of medical physicists in North America, at least for the time being. Wantdouble (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the parts referring to the supply of medical physicists in North America. If you decide to revert these changes, please go back and reinstate the other minor changes I made in that edit (not having to do with the supply of physicists). Wantdouble (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored content regarding the oversupply of physicists in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.189.159 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My proposal to remove the sentences about the supply of medical physicists was due to the fact that strong references were not provided. If you want to claim that there is an over supply, under supply, or that programs are claiming either of those things, stronger references are needed. To use the stats from the job ads, it's important to compare with past stats from job ads when the supply situation was known to be good/bad. The two current references (A letter in Physics Today Vol. 48, Is. 11, and a factoid in IUPESM Bulletin of the Developing Countries Committee no. 7) are more than 14 years old and cite the same statistic (AAPM membership increases). Due to the extremely low quality/applicability of these references, I suggest either replacing them with better ones or removing the claim entirely. Wantdouble (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a clinical medical physicist I feel the content on the oversupply of medical physicists is on target. There is a glut of medical physicists in the United States of America. Only USA academics, and USA businesses that import Visa applicants, state otherwise. Personalappeal (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "oversupply of medical physicists is on target" and therefore the content should stay. 76.93.189.159 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. I am not disagreeing with your claim about the supply. I am only saying that you need to provide better references. The current references do not support your claim very well (if at all). Wantdouble (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The current (1/12/2010) professional medical physicist organization in the United States, named the AAPM, lists jobs posted from 10/12/2009 to 1/12/2010. Of the 40 listed jobs, 11 are residency positions, 4 are postdoctoral positions, 2 are for dosimetrists. The number of medical physicist positions to be filled has decreased from 22 to 16. The average output of the educational programs is 150+. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.189.159 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Glorified technicians?

The sentence near the beginning of the article on a debate as to whether medical physicists are "glorified technicians" is out of place and seems biased. Could someone please remove it to achieve an impartial viewpoint?

Removed "Healthcare science" from first sentence

I removed the statement that "Medical physics is a division of Healthcare science". "Healthcare science" sounds like either an institution-specific term or a novel term. I was mostly prompted to do this because the user who made the edit was also the user who created the Healthcare science page on the same day as adding that phrase to the opening sentence of the medical physics article. Wantdouble (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Medical Physics is however a healthcare profession, as per the WHO ISCO Classification of Health Professions.--Nightryder84 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Medical biophysics into Medical physics Shroomy115 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing that the article Medical biophysics be merged into Medical physics. See Talk:Medical_biophysics for some discussion. Wantdouble (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

These two fields have some overlap, but are not the same. Medical physics is more about applying physics to medical applications, e.g. imaging, cancer treatment. Biophysics is more about the physics of a biological systems. This is not unlike the arguement about medical physics being a subspecialty of health physics. Overlap doesn't translate to them being the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.65.189 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true that biophysics and medical physics are significantly different. However, the article Medical biophysics is not the same as biophysics. Medical biophysics sounds mostly like a different phrase for the same thing as medical physics. There doesn't appear to be anything concrete to distinguish medical biophysics from medical physics. There are a few Canadian schools with departments of medical biophysics, but those appear to be departments encompassing both medical physics and biophysics as separate disciplines, and not "medical biophysics" as its own discipline. These are just my observations, however. Perhaps someone who identifies themself as a "medical biophysicist" could weigh in on the issue. Otherwise I'd support the merge. Shroomy115 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a medical physicist and took a graduate class in biophysics along the way. In my experience, medical physicists are almost exclusively involved in radiation therapy, nuclear medicine or medical imaging. The biophysicists were concerned with the mechanics and thermodynamics of protein folding and cellular ion channel opening. Portrayed in that way, the two fields are remarkably different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenpark15 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I got my undergrad in physics and math, phd in medical physics, and in residency. There is a pretty clear line between Medical Physics and biophysics. Although some research may be done that is similar to biophysics, the research is also similar to computer science (see computer-aided detection and visualization), chemistry (see PET tracers and contrast agents), engineering (see tomotherapy), and cancer biology (see radiosensitizers and tumor control probability). In terms of clinical practice, work is almost exclusively regarding imaging/therapy machines and corresponding protocols (something biophysicists seldom deal with). I would also point out that there are few (any?) clinical biophysics positions. Finally, medical physics often is a part of a larger division, but that division may be anywhere: Biological sciences for University of Chicago, nuclear physics for University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, its own department in the hospital at memorial sloan kettering, etc. I believe it would be a mistake to merge medical and biophysics articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zod16 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above posters. Biophysics or Medical Biophysics and Medical Physics are not the same, and in fact are very different. Medical Physics as per the definitions of the AAPM is a very well defined field, is highly translational, and clinical. That's why they are usually housed within medical facilities and/or medical schools. Hospitals employ "medical physicists", not biophysicists, to perform their QA and acceptance testing, and to help out the Radiologist staff with regulatory issues.

I also have a PhD in Medical Physics. "Biophysics" is a whole different animal. Overlapping, but different. They have different journals. Different career designs. And their professional societies are even different. Merging the two would be a mistake.Nightryder84 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a year since I commented on this proposed change. Since then, the few comments on this issue have done nothing to convince me that the two articles shouldn't be merged (or even simply delete the "medical biophysics" article). Those who have spoken out against merging the two seem to be equating "Biophysics" with "Medical biophysics." I absolutely agree we should not merge medical physics with biophysics. However, the question is about the term "medical biophysics", which is not a separate field. Universities with "medical biophysics" departments seem to either be differently named "Biophysics" departments, or encompass both medical physics and biophysics as separate disciplines (i.e. there's no specialty of "medical biophysics" to distinguish it from either medical physics or biophysics). I imagine a Venn diagram looking like this, with medical biophysics being a nebulous topic contained entirely within medical physics and biophysics. Shroomy115 (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I moved the "merge" discussion comments all to one topic. Shroomy115 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging is fine, as long as the title be kept as "Medical Physics", and the material pertaining to "medical biophysics" be presented in some subsection of the article. The American Board of Radiology certifies only physicians and "Medical Physicists"; i.e. there is no such thing as a "ABR board certified medical biophysicist". The WHO classifies "Medical Physics" as a health profession. Medical Biophysics is more of an academic department name.Nightryder84 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not Medical Physics

I don't know anyone that claims to be a medical physicist that does most of the things in the section "Physiological measurement techniques", except the ultrasound and laser aspects. The balance of those things look more like bioengineering and biophysics. With more than 30 years experience in university, private hospital, public hospital, and vulture center settings, I feel confident in my statement. That is not to say that some educational institutions attempting to merge programs may not be pulling the medical physicist programs into the bioengineering/biophysics programs. e.g. Georgia Tech pulled medical physics into School of Mechnical Engineering, but that doesn't give them an ME degree at graduation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.65.189 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

This article is a hodgepodge of poorly organized material. Medical Physics is a well-defined health profession as per the definitions and policies of Medicare, AAPM, ABR, and CAMPEP organizations (unlike Biomedical Physics, Medical Biophysics, or any other similar permutation of physics + biology + medicine) . Lots of clutter should be trimmed off from this article, as some of my colleagues have mentioned above.--Nightryder84 (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Complete overhaul needed

Am I the only one who feels that this article needs to be completely overhauled? Medical physics is a science and this article should reflect that as other articles on subfields of physics do. As is, it seems to be a (poor) article on the "Medical Physicist" profession, which is distinctly different though could be incorporated into the general article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclobb22 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's because people who are not medical physicists here are trying to push "medical physics" to be "physics in medicine and biology". The two are not the same, and they are not subsets of each other. The former is like occupational therapy or orthopedic surgery. The latter is a branch of basic science. They may overlap, but they are not the same.--Nightryder84 (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Education section

I propose that the Education section be moved to a page concerning the profession rather than the science, possibly Medical Physicist. Zen78 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The better suggestion would be to move all the science stuff to Physics in Medicine, which would deal with the science itself, as per 1 2 3, and leave the professional stuff here. Medical Physics is defined as "the application of physics to the needs (and not necessarily 'study') of medicine. One could be studying the effects of quantum dots on neurons, but it's not going to be 'medical physics' if it's not clinically used. Nightryder84 (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, unless there are any major objections I intend to move the majority of the useful parts of this article to medical physicist in a few weeks. Beevil (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211190050/http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html to http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113133937/http://www.medphys.ca/content.php?sec=1 to http://www.medphys.ca/content.php?sec=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703211143/http://www.uwo.ca/biophysics/ to http://www.uwo.ca/biophysics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)