ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Comparison of three methods of EPR retrospective dosimetry in watch glass.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Categorization of screen glasses of mobile devices with respect to their EPR spectral properties and potential applicability for use in retrospective dosimetry.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021: Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays.Radiation research · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article we present results of our follow-up studies of samples of watch glass obtained and examined within a framework of international intercomparison dosimetry project RENEB ILC 2021. We present three methods of dose reconstruction based on EPR measurements of these samples: calibration method (CM), added dose method (ADM) and added dose&heating method (ADHM). The study showed that the three methods of dose reconstruction gave reliable and similar results in 0.5-6.0 Gy dose range, with accuracy better than 10%. The ADHM is the only one applicable in a real scenario, when sample-specific background spectrum is not available; therefore, a positive verification of this method is important for future use of EPR dosimetry in glass in potential radiation accidents.
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.