ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Monte Carlo-based dosimetric comparison of indigenous and commercial
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates and compares the dosimetric performance of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)106Ru/106Rh eye plaques and a commercially available similar BEBIG CCA eye plaque using Monte Carlo simulations via the FLUKA code. Simulations were performed in both spherical water and mathematical eye phantoms to determine dosimetric parameters such as reference absorbed dose rates, percentage depth doses, off-axis dose profiles, and 2D dose mappings. The on-axis reference absorbed dose rates at 1 mm depth in the mathematical eye phantom was calculated as 10.712 ± 0.003 mGy/min-MBq for the BEBIG CCA plaque and 10.194 ± 0.003 mGy/min-MBq for the BARC plaque, showing close agreement between the two applicators. Off-axis and depth dose distributions confirmed that the BARC plaque delivers comparable dose profiles to the BEBIG plaque, with all critical eye structure doses, including the lens, retina, and cornea, well within established tolerance limits. The similarity in dose distributions between water and mathematical phantoms suggests that water can serve as a practical approximation for dosimetry evaluations. This study demonstrates that the BARC plaque provides dosimetric characteristics comparable to the BEBIG plaque, support its potential use in clinical ophthalmic brachytherapy.
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.