ArticleMedical physics2022
Validation of Monte Carlo
Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical review of partial volume correction methods in PET and SPECT imaging: benefits, pitfalls, challenges, and future outlook.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Quantitative SPECT/CT: Technique and Clinical Applications.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- Toward the standardization of radiopharmaceutical therapies: a technical note evaluating a clinical dosimetry workflow for single-time-pointEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Investigation of the tissue equivalence of typical 3D-printing materials for application in internal dosimetry using monte carlo simulations.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Innovative approaches in precision radiation oncology: advanced imaging technologies and challenges which shape the future of radiation therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Creation of waterproof, TLD probes for dose measurements to validate image-based radiopharmaceutical therapy dosimetry workflow.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2023Article
- Validation of Monte CarloMedical physics · 2022Article
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
Abstract
purposeApproximately 50% of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients will experience loco-regional disease recurrence following initial courses of therapy. Retreatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is technically challenging and may be associated with a significant risk of irreversible damage to normal tissues. Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is a potential method to treat recurrent HNC in conjunction with EBRT. Phantoms are used to calibrate and add quantification to nuclear medicine images, and anthropomorphic phantoms can account for both the geometrical and material composition of the head and neck. In this study, we present the creation of an anthropomorphic, head and neck, nuclear medicine phantom, and its characterization for the validation of a Monte Carlo, SPECT image-based,
methods3D-printing techniques were used to create the anthropomorphic phantom from a patient CT dataset. Three
resultsThe 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom was an accurate re-creation of patient anatomy including bone. The extrapolated Jaszczak recovery coefficients were greater than that of the 3D-printed insert (∼22.8 ml) for both the CDR and non-CDR cases (with CDR: 0.536 vs. 0.493, non-CDR: 0.445 vs. 0.426, respectively). Utilizing Jaszczak phantom PVCs, the absorbed dose was underpredicted by 0.7% and 4.9% without and with CDR, respectively. Utilizing anthropomorphic phantom recovery coefficient overpredicted the absorbed dose by 3% both with and without CDR. All dosimetry scenarios that incorporated PVC were within the calculated uncertainty of the activity. The uncertainties in the cumulative activity ranged from 23.6% to 106.4% for Jaszczak spheres ranging in volume from 0.5 to 16 ml.
conclusionThe accuracy of Monte Carlo-based dosimetry for
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.