ArticleMedical physics2026
An efficient method for evaluating the lead equivalence of x-ray radiation protective equipment using an analytical spectrum model.
Article in Medical physics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundX-ray radiation protective equipment is essential for ensuring the safety of medical staff. It is therefore important to verify its effectiveness, including confirming the specified lead equivalence ( PURPOSE: To introduce an efficient method for evaluating lead equivalence based on a computational model involving analytical spectrum modeling.
methodsThe method consists of measuring the transmission of the protective equipment and then translating it into a lead-equivalent thickness using a computational model. In this work, an example implementation is presented utilizing the SpekPy toolkit for spectrum modeling. To validate the method, it was used to estimate the thickness of high-purity lead sheets with known thicknesses (0.1-1.0-mm Pb). Furthermore, its application is demonstrated for two lead-free aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm
resultsThe method is accurate to within approximately 3% and is suitable for both narrow and broad beams. For broad beams, it is necessary to scale the measured transmission by the buildup factor for lead, as the analytical spectrum model does not account for scatter. This factor, which transfers broad-beam air kerma to narrow-beam air kerma, ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 for 50-120-kV beams incident upon lead sheets with thicknesses of 0.1-1.0 mm. Without this factor, the lead equivalence can be underestimated by up to 28%. Using the method developed, it was found that the effectiveness of lead-free aprons decreases by up to 20% for high-kV and high-filtration beams, while other equipment investigated agreed more closely with specifications. The MC simulations of scatter spectra indicated that scatter beams are generally softer than primary beams, with a reduction in TVL by up to 54% (average of 25%). The entire range of scatter-mimicking primary beams can be realized with tube voltages 50-100 kV and less than 0.3 mm added copper filtration.
conclusionsThe method developed can accurately convert measured transmission into lead equivalence using a computational model, which eliminates the need to handle physical lead sheets. The transmission can be measured using recommended scatter-mimicking x-ray tube beams, derived here for a broader range of scatter angles and clinical beams with higher filtration than has previously been considered.
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.