ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
A standardized measurement-based approach to estimate modelled relative biological effectiveness for auditing carbon ion beams.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and purpose: Differences in dose delivered during carbon radiotherapy are due largely to variations in relative biological effectiveness (RBE), which can be calculated by several models. While RBE can theoretically be calculated using Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (MKM) and measured microdosimetric quantities, clinical implementation relies on lookup tables. There exist no means of measuring RBE by MKM or other common models, including Repair Misrepair Fixation (RMF) and Local Effect Model-I (LEM). This study investigated estimating RBE using a single microdosimetric measurement for each model, allowing measurement-based validation and inter-model comparison. Materials and methods: Monte Carlo simulations were performed at 260 positions across nine carbon beams, from which microdosimetric quantities ( Results: Modelled RBE calculated using simulated input parameters versus estimated with the measurement-based fit were compared and found to be within ±10% accuracy in 96% (MKM), 100% (LEM), and 98% (RMF) of points. Average estimation uncertainty was 2.6% (MKM), 1.7% (LEM), and 4.3% (RMF). Conclusions: While modelled RBE has extensive associated uncertainty, this study demonstrated that it could be estimated with reasonable accuracy using a standardized measurement-based framework. Results suggested that microdosimetry can be used as a quality assurance tool to characterize carbon fields and verify correct implementation of RBE models.
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.