ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Digital phantom versus patient-specific radiation dosimetry in adult routine thorax CT examinations.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic CT organ dose estimation in whole-body PET/CT examinations-comparison of a patient-specific monte carlo approach and a computational phantom-based CT dosimetry tool.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-powered personalized patient dosimetry in CT.BJR artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Digital phantom versus patient-specific radiation dosimetry in adult routine thorax CT examinations.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the organ doses assessed through a digital phantom-based and a patient specific-based dosimetric tool in adult routine thorax computed tomography (CT) examinations with reference to physical dose measurements performed in anthropomorphic phantoms.
methodsTwo Monte Carlo based dose calculation tools were used to assess organ doses in routine adult thorax CT examinations. These were a digital phantom-based dosimetry tool (NCICT, National Cancer Institute, USA) and a patient-specific individualized dosimetry tool (ImpactMC, CT Imaging GmbH, Germany). Digital phantoms and patients were classified in four groups according to their water equivalent diameter (D
resultsThe average percent difference of NCICT to TLD and ImpactMC to TLD dose measurements across all organs in both sexes was 13% and 6%, respectively. The average ± 1 standard deviation in dose values across all organs with NCICT, ImpactMC, and TLDs was ± 0.06 (mGy/mGy), ± 0.19 (mGy/mGy), and ± 0.13 (mGy/mGy), respectively. Organ doses decreased with increasing D
conclusionOrgan doses estimated with ImpactMC were in closer agreement to TLDs compared to NCICT. This may be attributed to the inherent property of ImpactMC methodology to generate phantoms that resemble the realistic anatomy of the examined patient as opposed to NCICT methodology that incorporates an anatomical discrepancy between phantoms and patients.
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.