ArticleScientific reports2025
Recent advances in film dosimetry for quality assurance in microbeam radiation therapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Microbeam Radiation Therapy (MRT) is currently on the verge of entering the clinical phase, necessitating robust quality assurance (QA) with appropriate dosimeters to ensure patient safety. However, MRT dosimetry presents significant challenges due to its intrinsic characteristics, including steep dose gradients with alternating high and low dose regions-referred to as peaks and valleys (valley doses comprising only 5-7% of peak doses)-micrometric resolution requirements, the use of low-to-medium energy X-rays and extremely high dose rates of up to 16 kGy/s. Currently, Gafchromic films are considered the gold standard for patient QA. Previous studies have reported discrepancies of 10-30% between measured and calculated peak and valley doses. This study aimed to evaluate four types of films (EBT-3, EBT-XD, MD-V3, and HD-V2) to determine the most suitable option for MRT QA. To support dosimetric benchmarking, the microDiamond detector was used as the reference for MRT measurements, and the ionization chamber for broad beam reference dosimetry. Discrepancies were observed between calculated and film-measured peak and valley doses, and several hypotheses were proposed to explain these differences. Possible causes include simplifications in dose calculation engines, intrinsic limitations of the films, uncertainties in experimental setups, and variations in readout methods. The study suggests that MD-V3 may be the most suitable film for MRT dosimetry, offering a dynamic range that effectively covers both peak and valley doses.
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.