ArticleMedical physics2025
Fast and accurate peak skin dose estimation method for interventional fluoroscopy patients.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Patient radiation dosimetry for fluoroscopically guided interventions - a review of the history and limitations.Medical physics · 2026Review
- Fast and accurate peak skin dose estimation method for interventional fluoroscopy patients.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn fluoroscopy, particularly fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs), accurate estimation of peak skin dose (PSD) is crucial for identifying potential radiation-induced skin injuries. Most current methodologies for PSD calculation methods rely on analytical methods, which may introduce uncertainty due to their limited consideration of the complexities of x-ray beam conditions, patient geometry, and positioning. Methods based on full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations can enhance accuracy, but their practical application is limited due to the intensive requirement of computational resources and time. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a novel method that combines MC simulation with a noise reduction technique to calculate PSD, as well as skin dose distributions, more efficiently and accurately. The goal was to overcome the limitations of current methods, providing a more practical solution for clinical and academic use.
methodsOur method to calculate the PSD and skin dose distributions consists of two steps of rough MC simulation and iterative noise reduction. The performance of the methodology was demonstrated for six fluoroscopy scenarios, with results compared against those from full MC simulation with high particle history, which is considered a gold standard for radiation dosimetry relative to conventional analytical methods.
resultsOur method was demonstrated for various fluoroscopy scenarios, and the result showed that the iterative noise reduction procedure successfully estimates PSD and skin dose distribution for rough MC simulations with a maximum dose statistical error of up to 20%. For successful dose estimations, PSD discrepancies from the values obtained by full MC simulation were within 3%, and voxel-wise dose differences in skin dose distributions were less than 10% of the average skin dose. The computation time of our method was on the order of a few seconds on a personal computer, which is estimated to be at least 10
conclusionOur method rapidly and accurately calculates PSD and skin dose distribution, making it a useful tool for research and clinical applications. The planned integration of our method into the National Cancer Institute Dosimetry System for Radiography and Fluoroscopy (NCIRF) will enhance accessibility. Additionally, future upgrades of NCIRF will include a comprehensive phantom library and pregnant phantoms that will enable our method to account for patient-specific body shapes, further improving the accuracy and personalization in dose assessments.
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.