Purpose To investigate the usefulness and effectiveness of a dual beam‐current transformer (BCTs) design to monitor and record the beam dosimetry output and energy of pulsed electron FLASH (eFLASH) beams in real‐time, and to inform on the usefulness of this design for future eFLASH beam control. Methods Two BCTs are integrated into the head of a FLASH Mobetron system, one located after the primary scattering foil and the other downstream of the secondary scattering foil. The response of the BCTs was evaluated individually to monitor beam output as a function of dose, scattering conditions, and ability to capture physical beam parameters such as pulse width (PW), pulse repetition frequency (PRF), and dose per pulse (DPP), and in combination to determine beam energy using the ratio of the lower‐to‐upper BCT signal. Results A linear relationship was observed between the absorbed dose measured on Gafchromic film and the BCT signals for both the upper and lower BCT ( R 2 > 0.99). A linear relationship was also observed in the BCT signals as a function of the number of pulses delivered regardless of the PW, DPP, or PRF ( R 2 > 0.99). The lower‐to‐upper BCT ratio was found to correlate strongly with the energy of the eFLASH beam due to differential beam attenuation caused by the secondary scattering foil. The BCTs were also able to provide accurate information about the PW, PRF, energy, and DPP for each individual pulse delivered in real‐time. Conclusion The dual BCT system integrated within the FLASH Mobetron was shown to be a reliable monitoring system able to quantify accelerator performance and capture all essential physical beam parameters on a pulse‐by‐pulse basis, and the ratio between the two BCTs was strongly correlated with beam energy. The fast signal readout and processing enables the BCTs to provide real‐time information on beam output and energy and is proposed as a system suitable for accurate beam monitoring and control of eFLASH beams.

Conclusion:The results show that AI-driven contours are clinically useable in most cases. Disagreement between experts reflect the subjectivity of scoring. Objective metrics should be used in complement.

No abstract