ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2020
Dose rate determination for preclinical total body irradiation.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 3D printed collimators and dosimetry for spatially fractionated radiation therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Dosimetric characterization of a Varex VF-80/μXHP x-ray unit using open-ended applicators for superficial radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Dosimetric validation of SmART-RAD Monte Carlo modelling for x-ray cabinet radiobiology irradiators.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The accuracy of delivered radiation dose and the reproducibility of employed radiotherapy methods are key factors for preclinical radiobiology applications and research studies. In this work, ionization chamber (IC) measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to accurately determine the dose rate for total body irradiation (TBI), a classic radiobiologic and immunologic experimental method. Several phantom configurations, including large solid water slab, small water box and rodentomorphic mouse and rat phantoms were simulated and measured for TBI setup utilizing a preclinical irradiator XRad320. The irradiator calibration and the phantom measurements were performed using an ADCL calibrated IC N31010 following the AAPM TG-61 protocol. The MC simulations were carried out using Geant4/GATE to compute absorbed dose distributions for all phantom configurations. All simulated and measured geometries had favorable agreement. On average, the relative dose rate difference was 2.3%. However, the study indicated large dose rate deviations, if calibration conditions are assumed for a given experimental setup as commonly done for a quick determination of irradiation times utilizing lookup tables and hand calculations. In a TBI setting, the reference calibration geometry at an extended source-to-surface distance and a large reference field size is likely to overestimate true photon scatter. Consequently, the measured and hand calculated dose rates, for TBI geometries in this study, had large discrepancies: 16% for a large solid water slab, 27% for a small water box, and 31%, 36%, and 30% for mouse phantom, rat phantom, and mouse phantom in a pie cage, respectively. Small changes in TBI experimental setup could result in large dose rate variations. MC simulations and the corresponding measurements specific to a designed experimental setup are vital for accurate preclinical dosimetry and reproducibility of radiobiological findings. This study supports the well-recognized need for physics consultation for all radiobiological investigations.
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.