ReviewThe British journal of radiology2025
The importance of standardization and challenges of dosimetry in conventional preclinical radiation biology research.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor response and tolerability under fractionated x-ray irradiation in a mouse xenograft model.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Drosophila melanogaster: an old and future ally to radiobiology.Journal of radiation research · 2025Review
- From Semantic Modeling to Precision Radiotherapy: An AI Framework Linking Radiobiology, Oncology, and Public Health Integration.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Radiobiological Modeling with Monte Carlo Tools - Simulating Cellular Responses to Ionizing Radiation.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To fully exploit the prospects presented by the increasing focus on biological approaches for enhancing radiotherapy outcomes, improvements in repeatability and translatability of radiobiological and preclinical studies are required. This requires the development and adoption of appropriate dosimetric standards and reproducible approaches to increase confidence in the studies, enabling inter-laboratory validation and facilitating clinical translation. An Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM) working party reviewed the current status and challenges associated with dosimetry of medium-energy X-rays and make recommendations with the aim to optimize the potential clinical significance of radiobiological preclinical investigations. The paper discusses the currently available resources with technical recommendations for performing dosimetry in medium-energy X-rays, along with the consequences of lack of standardization and implications of dose inhomogeneity. It is clear that there is still a gap in understanding the needs for standardization of dosimetric aspects of preclinical and radiobiological studies. It is recommended that these radiobiology studies should be conducted in partnership with medical/radiation physicists. This collaboration ensures the correct utilization of suitable dosimetry systems, thus guaranteeing accuracy and consistency of dose delivery. Appropriate calibration and traceability to national/international standards laboratory, along with regular quality assurance of radiation devices, are paramount to reproducibility. Additionally, it is critical that experimental details and associated dosimetry are sufficiently reported to ensure accurate replication that enables reanalysis including evaluation of dose distributions. Increasing awareness among the researchers and the funding bodies was identified as a crucial step to improve translatability and appropriate resources are budgeted to increase the value for money of research proposals. The proposed recommendations will serve as a vital resource for researchers, encouraging uniformity in experimental design and improving the translatability of preclinical research to clinical settings.
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.