Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24957016›Full record

ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2014

Electron paramagnetic resonance radiation dose assessment in fingernails of the victim exposed to high dose as result of an accident.

Alexander Romanyukha, François Trompier, Ricardo A Reyes, Doran M Christensen, Carol J Iddins, Stephen L Sugarman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cutaneous and local radiation injuries.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Natural dead sea salt and retrospective dosimetry.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2020
    Article
  7. The effect of sunlight and UV lamps on EPR signal in nails.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander RomanyukhaNaval Dosimetry Center, Bethesda, MD, USA, alexander.romanyukha@med.navy.mil.
François Trompier
Ricardo A Reyes
Doran M Christensen
Carol J Iddins
Stephen L Sugarman
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire · FROak Ridge Associated Universities · USUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences · US

Funding

Scientific and Administrative Core: Dartmouth Medical SchoolU19AI091173 · NIAID · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI SWARTS, STEVEN GREGORY · 2010 to 2014
$16.3M
NIAID NIH HHS U19-AI091173
6 · The paper itself

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

Radiation DosageRadioactive Hazard ReleaseElectron Spin Resonance SpectroscopyEnvironmental ExposureHumansNailsRadiometry

Identifiers

PMID24957016
OpenAlexW2065823174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.