ArticleJournal of radiation research2021
Behavior of the electron spin resonance signals in X-ray irradiated human fingernails for the establishment of a dose reconstruction procedure.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of age and other individual factors on radiation induced ESR signals from fingernails.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The retrospective dosimetry that follows accidental X-ray exposure is becoming more significant for improving radiation diagnosis and treatment. We investigated the dosimetric properties of electron spin resonance (ESR) signals in X-ray irradiated fingernails under conditions that resemble realistic situations. We collected fingernails from 12 Japanese donors between the ages of 30 to 70. The sampled fingernails were utilized for X-ray irradiation, mechanical stimulation and background measurements. We also collected 10 toenails from one of the donors to evaluate their differences from fingernails. Additionally, we prepared 15 samples from two donors to compare the signals generated by γ-rays to those by X-rays. After observing the linear dose-response for both X- and γ-ray irradiated samples, we found that the sensitivity of the air-absorbed dose of γ-ray irradiated samples was identical to that of X-ray irradiated samples. The effect from secondary electrons seemed to be small in fingernails. The inter-individual variation in the sensitivity was no greater than the intra-individual variation. The signal intensities in each measurement fluctuated about the linear response curve, and the size of the fluctuation was dependent on the sample. The average fluctuation corresponded to 1.7 Gy, and the standard deviation was 1.3 Gy. The signal induced by X-rays could be erased by soaking the samples in water and subsequently drying them for four days, which allowed us to estimate the signal intensity prior to the exposure. These characteristics of the ESR signal induced by X-rays facilitate the development of a feasible protocol for fingernail dose reconstruction.
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.