ArticleThe Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS2025
Dosimetry Evaluation on the Use of
Article in The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative dosimetry study of PARaDIM and RT-PHITS with ICRP publication 128: calculation of organ doses fromRadiological physics and technology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: PET/CT using Methods: OLINDA/EXM (version 1.1) and Geant4 MC (version 10.6.0) software were used to evaluate the absorbed doses to the liver, kidneys, and urinary bladder. MIRD-5 mathematical phantom was used in Geant4 MC simulation, whereas in OLINDA/EXM, adult male and female models with organ masses normalised to the Japanese reference model were applied. Results: The mean absorbed doses to the liver, kidneys, and urinary bladder were 0.010 ± 0.006 mGy/MBq, 0.011 ± 0.004 mGy/MBq, and 0.025 ± 0.047 mGy/MBq, respectively, for OLINDA/EXM, and 0.009 ± 0.004 mGy/MBq, 0.011 ± 0.003 mGy/MBq, and 0.073 ± 0.086 mGy/MBq, respectively, for Geant4 MC. The corresponding differences between these two methods were 10.526%, 0%, and 97.959%, respectively for the liver, kidneys, and urinary bladder. The results comply with the ICRP-128 limits, indicating the safe use of Conclusion: Both methods were shown to be reliable in estimating the absorbed dose for
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.