ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Personalized lung dosimetry evaluated by
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether personalized lung mass improves pre-treatment lung dose estimation accuracy compared to the 1000-g lung model, using post-treatment MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients treated with
resultsThe mean lung mass (760.11 ± 144.89 g) was significantly lower than the 1000-g model (P < 0.001). Two patients (2%) developed RP, and both had baseline lung metastases (28% overall). Although limited by the small number of events, the RP group showed a trend toward higher median administered activity (4425 MBq [range, 3000-5800 MBq] vs. 1300 MBq [range, 400-4900 MBq]) and lung absorbed dose, whereas no similar trend was observed for lung shunt fraction (LSF) (7.6% [range, 5.1-10.0%] vs. 4.3% [range, 1.0-14.5%]). Personalized lung dose showed a stronger correlation with
conclusionPersonalized dosimetry improves predictive accuracy and mitigates sex-related dosimetric bias, suggesting CT-derived lung mass should be considered to optimize
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412307What 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.