ArticleScientific reports2026
Real-case applications of luminescence retrospective dosimetry in small-scale radiological accidents.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retrospective dosimetry based on thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) using personal belongings was applied to a series of small‑scale radiological accidents that occurred in South Korea between 2015 and 2024. Display glasses and surface‑mounted resistors (SMR) extracted from mobile phones and electro-personal dosimeters (EPDs) of exposed individuals were analyzed using measurement protocols employed in multiple interlaboratory comparison (ILC) exercises. The reconstructed doses ranged from below the detection limit to several grays. In low‑dose cases (≤ 320 mGy), TL/OSL estimates aligned with those obtained from the dicentric chromosome assay (DCA). In contrast, discrepancies emerged in some high‑dose cases: in one accident, the mobile‑phone‑derived dose substantially exceeded the DCA estimate, whereas in another, the TL/OSL analysis revealed an exposure that DCA failed to detect. These findings confirm that luminescence techniques cannot yet serve as a stand‑alone tool for representing individual doses, but they can provide critical, scenario‑dependent complementary information to existing retrospective methods. The study also discusses the potential of the techniques and key considerations regarding regulatory and technical perspectives for their practical implementation in real-world scenarios.
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.