ArticleHeliyon2022
Accuracy of two dosimetry software programs for
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of energy deposition pixel kernel convolution for planar dosimetry inAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Quantitative whole-body dynamic planar scintigraphy in mice withEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Feasibility of individual dosimetry using RT-PHITS for patients with SPECT/CT imaging afterPhysical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating auto-contouring accuracy in reduced CT dose images for radiopharmaceutical therapies: Denoising and evaluation ofJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- A review of 177Lu dosimetry workflows: how to reduce the imaging workloads?EJNMMI physics · 2024Review
- Predicting the spatio-temporal response of recurrent glioblastoma treated with rhenium-186 labelled nanoliposomes.Brain multiphysics · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Virtual dosimetry using voxel-based patient-specific phantoms and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations offer the advantage of having a gold standard against which absorbed doses may be benchmarked to establish the dosimetry accuracy. Furthermore, these reference values assist in investigating the accuracy of the absorbed dose methodologies from different software programs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracy of the absorbed doses computed using LundADose and OLINDA/EXM 1.0. Methods: The accuracy was based on Results: Overall, the results presented an overestimation of the mean absorbed dose by LND-D Conclusion: The better than 10% accuracy suggests that the mean dose values obtained with LND-D
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.