ArticleMedical physics2022
Dose coefficients for organ dosimetry in tomosynthesis imaging of adults and pediatrics across diverse protocols.
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 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.
- Assessing the Organ Dose in Diagnostic Imaging with Digital Tomosynthesis System Using TLD100H Dosimeters.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Toward widespread use of virtual trials in medical imaging innovation and regulatory science.Medical physics · 2024Review
- Dose coefficients for organ dosimetry in tomosynthesis imaging of adults and pediatrics across diverse protocols.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Breathing-Adapted Imaging Techniques for Rapid 4-Dimensional Lung Tomosynthesis.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe gold-standard method for estimation of patient-specific organ doses in digital tomosynthesis (DT) requires protocol-specific Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of radiation transport in anatomically accurate computational phantoms. Although accurate, MC simulations are computationally expensive, leading to a turnaround time in the order of core hours for simulating a single exam. This limits their clinical utility. The purpose of this study is to overcome this limitation by utilizing patient- and protocol-specific MC simulations to develop a comprehensive database of air-kerma-normalized organ dose coefficients for a virtual population of adult and pediatric patient models over an expanded set of exam protocols in DT for retrospective and prospective estimation of radiation dose in clinical tomosynthesis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA clinically representative virtual population of 14 patient models was used, with pediatric models (M and F) at ages 1, 5, 10, and 15 and adult patient models (M and F) with body mass index (BMIs) at 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles of the US population. A graphics processing unit (GPU)-based MC simulation framework was used to simulate organ doses in the patient models, incorporating the scanner-specific configuration of a clinical DT system (VolumeRad, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA) and an expanded set of exam protocols, including 21 distinct acquisition techniques for imaging a variety of anatomical regions (head and neck, thorax, spine, abdomen, and knee). Organ dose coefficients (h
resultsThe database of organ dose coefficients (h
conclusionsThis study developed a database of organ dose coefficients for a virtual population of 14 adult and pediatric XCAT patient models over a set of 21 exam protocols in DT. Using empirical measurements of air kerma in the clinic, these organ dose coefficients enable practical retrospective and prospective patient-specific radiation dosimetry. The computation of air-kerma-normalized patient-specific effective doses further enables the comparison of radiation burden to the patient populations between protocols and between imaging modalities (e.g., DT and projection radiography), as presented in this study.
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.