Topic
Deep-dose equivalent
About: Deep-dose equivalent is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 48 publications have been published within this topic receiving 623 citations.
Papers
TL;DR: In this review, effective dose equivalent and effective dose, as established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1977 and 1990, respectively, are defined and various methods of calculating these quantities are presented for radionuclides, radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography and mammography.
Abstract: The concept of "effective dose" was introduced in 1975 to provide a mechanism for assessing the radiation detriment from partial body irradiations in terms of data derived from whole body irradiations. The effective dose is the mean absorbed dose from a uniform whole-body irradiation that results in the same total radiation detriment as from the nonuniform, partial-body irradiation in question. The effective dose is calculated as the weighted average of the mean absorbed dose to the various body organs and tissues, where the weighting factor is the radiation detriment for a given organ (from a whole-body irradiation) as a fraction of the total radiation detriment. In this review, effective dose equivalent and effective dose, as established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1977 and 1990, respectively, are defined and various methods of calculating these quantities are presented for radionuclides, radiography, fluoroscopy, computed tomography and mammography. In order to calculate either quantity, it is first necessary to estimate the radiation dose to individual organs. One common method of determining organ doses is through Monte Carlo simulations of photon interactions within a simplified mathematical model of the human body. Several groups have performed these calculations and published their results in the form of data tables of organ dose per unit activity or exposure. These data tables are specified according to particular examination parameters, such as radiopharmaceutical, x-ray projection, x-ray beam energy spectra or patient size. Sources of these organ dose conversion coefficients are presented and differences between them are examined. The estimates of effective dose equivalent or effective dose calculated using these data, although not intended to describe the dose to an individual, can be used as a relative measure of stochastic radiation detriment. The calculated values, in units of sievert (or rem), indicate the amount of whole-body irradiation that would yield the equivalent radiation detriment as the exam in question. In this manner, the detriment associated with partial or organ-specific irradiations, as are common in diagnostic radiology, can be assessed.
314 citations
TL;DR: In radiation fields where most of the dose comes from photons, especially x-rays, it is appropriate to use dosemeters calibrated in terms of H(p)(0.07) on a slab phantom, while in other radiation fields (dominated by beta radiation or unknown contributions of photon and beta radiation) dosemeter calibrated in Terms of H (p)(3) onA slab phantom should be used.
Abstract: Recent epidemiological studies suggest a rather low dose threshold (below 0.5 Gy) for the induction of a cataract of the eye lens. Some other studies even assume that there is no threshold at all. Therefore, protection measures have to be optimized and current dose limits for the eye lens may be reduced in the future. The question of which personal dose equivalent quantity is appropriate for monitoring the dose to the eye lens arises from this situation. While in many countries dosemeters calibrated in terms of the dose equivalent quantity H(p)(0.07) have been seen as being adequate for monitoring the dose to the eye lens, this might be questionable in the case of reduced dose limits and, thus, it may become necessary to use the dose equivalent quantity H(p)(3) for this purpose. To discuss this question, the dose conversion coefficients for the equivalent dose of the eye lens (in the following eye lens dose) were determined for realistic photon and beta radiation fields and compared with the values of the corresponding conversion coefficients for the different operational quantities. The values obtained lead to the following conclusions: in radiation fields where most of the dose comes from photons, especially x-rays, it is appropriate to use dosemeters calibrated in terms of H(p)(0.07) on a slab phantom, while in other radiation fields (dominated by beta radiation or unknown contributions of photon and beta radiation) dosemeters calibrated in terms of H(p)(3) on a slab phantom should be used. As an alternative, dosemeters calibrated in terms of H(p)(0.07) on a slab phantom could also be used; however, in radiation fields containing beta radiation with the end point energy near 1 MeV, an overestimation of the eye lens dose by up to a factor of 550 is possible.
70 citations
TL;DR: The AI-enabled fluoroscopy system significantly reduces radiation exposure to patients and scatter effect to endoscopy personnel (see Graphical abstract, Supplementary Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B461).
41 citations
TL;DR: The value of the quotient 0.7, which is adopted to applied to environmental Gamma radiations in the UNSCEAR 1982 and 1988 Reports, was clarified to be about 7% lower than the one obtained experimentally for natural gamma radiations.
Abstract: A practical conversion factor to estimate the value of effective dose equivalent rate in Sv unit from absorbed dose rate in air in Gy unit was examined for natural gamma radiations. The experimental examination was carried out by two methods; one measures the effective dose equivalent rate directly by using a measuring instrument having effective dose equivalent response for isotropic gamma radiations and the other obtaines it from calculation applying the gamma flux-to-effective dose equivalent factor to actual gamma energy spectrum measured in various indoor and outdoor places.From these investigations the value of the quotient of effective dose equivalent to absorbed dose in air was found do be 0.748±0.007 Sv per Gy for natural radiation exposures in various environments. The value of the quotient 0.7, which is adopted to applied to environmental gamma radiations in the UNSCEAR 1982 and 1988 Reports, was clarified to be about 7% lower than the one obtained experimentally for natural gamma radiations.
29 citations
TL;DR: The results indicate that the doses for the handheld systems are significantly less than for wall-mounted systems, and there should be no concern about the use of this handheld dental intraoral x-ray system.
Abstract: A handheld portable dental intraoral x-ray system is available in the United States and elsewhere. The system is designed to minimize the user's radiation dose. It includes specially designed shielding of the x-ray tube housing and an integral radiation shield to minimize backscatter. Personnel radiation dose records were obtained from 18 dental facilities using both the handheld system and a wall mounted dental x-ray system, providing 661 individual dose measurements. Dental staff doses were also compared for the handheld and conventional systems using both film and digital imaging for the same facilities and staff members. The results indicate that the doses for the handheld systems are significantly less than for wall-mounted systems. The average monthly dose for the handheld systems was 0.28 μSv vs. 7.86 μSv (deep dose equivalent) for the wall-mounted systems, a difference that is statistically significant at the p = 0.01 level. Consequently, there should be no concern about the use of this handheld dental intraoral x-ray system. Additional shielding efforts, (e.g., wearing a lead apron) will not provide significant benefit nor reduce staff radiation dose.
28 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2017 | 1 |
| 2016 | 5 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2 |
| 2013 | 1 |