ArticleJournal of X-ray science and technology2020
Comparison of central, peripheral, and weighted size-specific dose in CT.
Article in Journal of X-ray science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-software variability in CT organ-dose calculation under identical scan conditions: implications for users and dose evaluation in the Japanese population.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- A clinically feasible model for size-specific estimation of eye lens dose in head CT.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of direct point dose estimation based on the distribution of the size-specific dose estimate.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Investigation of Eye Lens Dose Estimate based on AAPM Report 293 in Head Computed Tomography.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine X-ray dose distribution and the correlation between central, peripheral and weighted-centre peripheral doses for various phantom sizes and tube voltages in computed tomography (CT). We used phantoms developed in-house, with various water-equivalent diameters (Dw) from 8.5 up to 42.1 cm. The phantoms have one hole in the centre and four holes at the periphery. By using these five holes, it is possible to measure the size-specific central dose (Ds,c), peripheral dose (Ds,p), and weighted dose (Ds,w).The phantoms are scanned using a CT scanner (Siemens Somatom Definition AS), with the tube voltage varied from 80 up to 140 kVps. The doses are measured using a pencil ionization chamber (Ray safe X2 CT Sensor) in every hole for all phantoms. The relationships between Ds,c, Ds,p, and Ds,w, and the water-equivalent diameter are established. The size-conversion factors are calculated. Comparisons between Ds,c, Ds,p, and Ds,ware also established. We observe that the dose is relatively homogeneous over the phantom for water-equivalent diameters of 12-14 cm. For water-equivalent diameters less than 12 cm, the dose in the centre is higher than at the periphery, whereas for water-equivalent diameters greater than 14 cm, the dose at the centre is lower than that at the periphery. We also find that the distribution of the doses is influenced by the tube voltage. These dose distributions may be useful for calculating organ doses for specific patients using their CT images in future clinical practice.
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.