ArticleScientific reports2022
Compact bunker shielding assessment for 1.5 T MR-Linac.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of the 1.5 T magnetic field of the magnetic resonance-guided linear accelerator (MR-Linac) on the radiation leakage doses penetrating the bunker radiation shielding wall. The evaluated 1.5 T MR-Linac Unity system has a bunker of the minimum recommended size. Unlike a conventional Linac, both primary beam transmission and secondary beam leakage were considered independently in the design and defined at the machine boundary away from the isocenter. Moreover, additional shielding was designed considering the numerous ducts between the treatment room and other rooms. The Linac shielding was evaluated by measuring the leakage doses at several locations. The intrinsic vibration and magnetic field were inspected at the proposed isocenter of the system. For verification, leakage doses were measured before and after applying the magnetic field. The intrinsic vibration and magnetic field readings were below the permitted limit. The leakage dose (0.05-12.2 µSv/week) also complied with internationally stipulated limits. The special shielding achieved a five-fold reduction in leakage dose. Applying the magnetic field increased the leakage dose by 0.12 to 4.56 µSv/week in several measurement points, although these values fall within experimental uncertainty. Thus, the effect of the magnetic field on the leakage dose could not be ascertained.
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.