ArticleScientific reports2026
Shielding assessment for multi-ion radiotherapy based on ion-specific dose-defined workloads.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expansion of heavy-ion radiotherapy toward multi-ion operation requires a reassessment of shielding design methods that have traditionally relied on particle-number-based workloads. In facilities employing multiple ion species, this approach becomes inconsistent because different ions require substantially different numbers of primary particles to deliver the same prescribed dose. In this study, neutron shielding characteristics for helium, carbon, oxygen, and neon ion beams were evaluated using dose-defined workloads that reflect actual clinical and operational practice. Shielding effectiveness was assessed per unit physical dose to represent quality assurance and commissioning activities, and per unit Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose to represent treatment-related workload, based on PHITS Monte Carlo simulations. Under physical-dose normalization, carbon consistently produced the largest neutron effective dose across all shielding configurations. Under RBE-weighted dose normalization, carbon generally remained the most conservative reference ion, although high-energy helium under metallic beam-loss target conditions approached the carbon reference in selected configurations. These findings demonstrate that shielding outcomes are strongly dependent on the dose quantity used to define workload and support the continued use of carbon as the primary reference ion for multi-ion shielding assessment, while indicating that high-energy helium may approach the carbon reference only under restricted treatment-related metallic-target conditions.
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.