ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Inter-software variability in CT organ-dose calculation under identical scan conditions: implications for users and dose evaluation in the Japanese population.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Organ dose calculation software offers a convenient way to estimate organ and effective doses in computed tomography (CT) for radiation risk assessment. However, even under identical scan conditions the estimates differ among software packages, and users must understand these differences when applying the results. We quantified the magnitude and causes of inter-software differences and evaluated typical doses for the Japanese population. Three packages-NCICT, WAZA-ARI v2, and VirtualDose CT-were compared under identical conditions (120 kV, 1 s rotation, pitch 1, no tube current modulation) for head, chest, and abdomen-pelvis scans. Tube current was matched to the national median dose indices (Japan DRLs 2025), and the body size to the Japanese adult average (male 170 cm/70 kg; female 160 cm/50 kg). Excluding muscle, organ doses differed among software by up to 28% (male) and 47% (female) relative to WAZA-ARI v2. Muscle was a separate outlier: the muscle dose from the size-adjustable phantom of NCICT was about 90% lower than that from the other two packages. Scanner-dependent differences appeared only in WAZA-ARI v2 (up to 19%), and a ± 2 cm change in scan position markedly altered doses to organs at the scan boundary. Effective doses for the Japanese population were approximately 2.2 mSv (head), 9.6 mSv (chest), and 13.0 mSv (abdomen-pelvis), all within the ranges reported by UNSCEAR 2020/2021. Because all packages have been examined against measurements previously, these differences arise from phantom anatomy and size and from calculation algorithms rather than from inaccuracy; users should interpret results with awareness of this variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828710What 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.