ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2014
Electron paramagnetic resonance radiation dose assessment in fingernails of the victim exposed to high dose as result of an accident.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of age and other individual factors on radiation induced ESR signals from fingernails.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Potential of smartwatch touchscreen glass for electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry in radiological emergencies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- In Vivo Verification of Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Biodosimetry Using Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy Treatment.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024Article
- Cutaneous and local radiation injuries.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2022Review
- On the modeling of amplitude-sensitive electron spin resonance (ESR) detection using voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO)-based ESR-on-a-chip detectors.Magnetic resonance (Gottingen, Germany) · 2021Article
- Natural dead sea salt and retrospective dosimetry.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020Article
- The effect of sunlight and UV lamps on EPR signal in nails.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2019Article
- Developments in Biodosimetry Methods for Triage With a Focus on X-band Electron Paramagnetic Resonance In Vivo Fingernail Dosimetry.Health physics · 2018Article
- Dielectric-Backed Aperture Resonators for X-Band in vivo EPR Nail Dosimetry.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2016Article
- State-of-the-Art Advances in Radiation Biodosimetry for Mass Casualty Events Involving Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2016Review
- Effects of water on fingernail electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry.Journal of radiation research · 2016Article
- Emergency EPR dosimetry technique using vacuum-stored dry nails.Radiation measurements · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper, we report results of radiation dose measurements in fingernails of a worker who sustained a radiation injury to his right thumb while using 130 kVp X-ray for nondestructive testing. Clinically estimated absorbed dose was about 20-25 Gy. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dose assessment was independently carried out by two laboratories, the Naval Dosimetry Center (NDC) and French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN). The laboratories used different equipments and protocols to estimate doses in the same fingernail samples. NDC used an X-band transportable EPR spectrometer, e-scan produced by Bruker BioSpin, and a universal dose calibration curve. In contrast, IRSN used a more sensitive Q-band stationary spectrometer (EMXplus) with a new approach for the dose assessment (dose saturation method), derived by additional dose irradiation to known doses. The protocol used by NDC is significantly faster than that used by IRSN, nondestructive, and could be done in field conditions, but it is probably less accurate and requires more sample for the measurements. The IRSN protocol, on the other hand, potentially is more accurate and requires very small amount of sample but requires more time and labor. In both EPR laboratories, the intense radiation-induced signal was measured in the accidentally irradiated fingernails and the resulting dose assessments were different. The dose on the fingernails from the right thumb was estimated as 14 ± 3 Gy at NDC and as 19 ± 6 Gy at IRSN. Both EPR dose assessments are given in terms of tissue kerma. This paper discusses the experience gained by using EPR for dose assessment in fingernails with a stationary spectrometer versus a portable one, the reasons for the observed discrepancies in dose, and potential advantages and disadvantages of each approach for EPR measurements in fingernails.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.