Uncertainty evaluation for organ dose assessment with optically stimulated luminescence measurements on mobile phone resistors after a radiological incident

2021 ◽  
Vol 141 ◽  
pp. 106520
Author(s):  
Olivier Van Hoey ◽  
Demi Römkens ◽  
Jonathan Eakins ◽  
Eftychia Kouroukla ◽  
Michael Discher ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chena Lee ◽  
Jeongmin Yoon ◽  
Sang-Sun Han ◽  
Ji Yeon Na ◽  
Jeong-Hee Lee ◽  
...  

AbstractThe usage and the model variety of CBCT machine has been rapidly increasing, the dose evaluation of individual devices became an important issue. Patient dose from CBCT was assessed with two different methods, optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) measured and monte carlo (MC) simulation, in four different examination modes. Through the measurement process and obtained value, more practical and efficient method in acquiring CBCT effective dose would be suggested. Twenty-five OSLD were calibrated and equipped in human phantom of head and neck organs. This was exposed on 2 CBCT units, CS9300 (Carestream Dental LLC, Atlanta, Georgia) and RAYSCAN α+ (Ray Co. Ltd, Hwaseong-si, Korea) with 2 different examination modes. Dose recorded in dosimetry was obtained and organ dose as well as an effective dose were obtained in each units of examination modes. Those values were also calculated using MC software, PCXMC (STUK, Helsinki, Finland). The organ doses and effective doses from both methods were compared by each examination mode of individual unit. OSLD measured effective dose value was higher than that obtained with MC method in each examination mode, except dual jaw mode of CS9300. The percent difference of effective dose between the two methods were ranged from 4.0 to 14.3 %. The dose difference between the methods was decreased as the examination FOV decreased. Organ dose values were varied according to the method, while overall trend was similar in both methods. The organs showing high dose were mostly consistent in both methods. In this study, the effective dose obtained by OSLD measurement and MC simulation were compared and both methods were described in detail. Consequently, as relatively efficient and easy-handling method, we carefully suggest MC simulation for further dose evaluation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 106625
Author(s):  
Hyoungtaek Kim ◽  
Michael Discher ◽  
Min Chae Kim ◽  
Clemens Woda ◽  
Jungil Lee

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Shaojie Yan ◽  
Zhen Cui ◽  
Yungang Wang ◽  
Zhenjiang Li ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 102 ◽  
pp. 102-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usman Mahmood ◽  
Natally Horvat ◽  
Joao Vicente Horvat ◽  
Davinia Ryan ◽  
Yiming Gao ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 216 (3) ◽  
pp. 824-834
Author(s):  
Wanyi Fu ◽  
Francesco Ria ◽  
William Paul Segars ◽  
Kingshuk Roy Choudhury ◽  
Joshua M. Wilson ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. S266
Author(s):  
Y. Zhang ◽  
H. Wu ◽  
Z. Chen ◽  
J. Knisely ◽  
R. Nath ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-488
Author(s):  
Peter H Pedersen ◽  
Asger G Petersen ◽  
Svend E Ostgaard ◽  
Torben Tvedebrink ◽  
Søren P Eiskjær

Abstract This study evaluated repeated mean organ dose measurements of the liver by phantom dosimetry and statistical modelling in order to find a way to reduce the number of dosemeters needed for precise organ dose measurements. Thermoluminescent dosemeters were used in an adult female phantom exposed to a biplanar x-ray source at three different axial phantom rotations. Generalised mixed linear effect modelling was used for statistical analysis. A subgroup of five to six organ-specific locations out of 28 yielded mean liver organ doses within 95% confidence intervals of measurements based on all 28 liver-specific dosemeter locations. No statistical difference of mean liver dose was observed with rotation of the phantom either 10° clockwise or counter-clockwise as opposed to the coronal plane. Phantom dosimetry handling time during organ dose measurements can be markedly reduced, in this case the liver, by 79% (22/28), while still providing precise mean organ dose measurements.


2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 667-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley E. Bolch ◽  
Brian D. Pomije ◽  
Jennifer B. Sessions ◽  
Manuel M. Arreola ◽  
Jonathan L. Williams ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document