ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2023
An anthropomorphic body phantom for the determination of calibration factor in radionuclide treatment dosimetry.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2023. 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.
- Improving image quality in terbium-161 phantom imaging: Quantitative evaluation of DEW and TEW scatter correction methods.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Ventra: A Programmable Abdominal Phantom for Training, Educational, Research, and Development Purposes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to create an inhomogeneous human-like phantom, whose attenuation and scattering effects are similar to the human body, as an alternative to the homogeneous phantoms traditionally used in calibration factor (CF) determination. The phantom was designed to include the thorax, abdomen and upper pelvis regions sized to represent a 75-kg male with a body mass index of 25. Measurements using Lu-177 with 50- and 100-mL lesion volumes were performed using inhomogeneous anthropomorphic body phantom (ABP) and homogeneous NEMA PET body phantom. There was a difference of 5.7% of Calibration Factor including attenuation and scatter effect between ABP and NEMA PET body phantom. Because it better reflects the attenuation and scatter effect, it is recommended to use a human-like inhomogeneous phantom for determination of CF instead of a homogeneous phantom.
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.