Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Distance Corrections01:15

Distance Corrections

To achieve precise distance measurements, especially in surveying and construction, certain corrections must be applied to account for potential sources of error like the standardization errors, temperature variations, and slope adjustments.Standardization error emerges when measurement equipment undergoes changes, such as wear, repairs, or weather impacts. To address this, surveyors compare the equipment’s readings to a standard. This process identifies any deviation that might lead to...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
Errors in Taping01:18

Errors in Taping

Errors in taping arise from multiple factors that can significantly impact measurement accuracy in surveying. Misalignment of the tape, often due to human error, is one primary source. A skilled rear tapeman, using a telescope, can help correct alignment by guiding the head tapeman; however, human limitations still lead to small inaccuracies. These errors may include misplacement of pins or inaccurate tape readings due to common visual confusions, such as mistaking a six for a nine. Such...
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

NSGO-OV-UMB1/ENGOT-OV30: A phase II study of durvalumab in combination with the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody Oleclumab in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer.

Gynecologic oncology·2024
Same author

Influence of volumetric modulated arc therapy and FET-PET scanning on treatment outcomes for glioblastoma patients.

Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology·2018
Same author

THE RESULTS OF THE EURADOS INTERCOMPARISON IC2014 FOR WHOLE-BODY DOSEMETERS IN PHOTON FIELDS.

Radiation protection dosimetry·2016
Same author

EURADOS PROGRAMME OF INTERCOMPARISONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MONITORING SERVICES: SEVEN YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE PLANS.

Radiation protection dosimetry·2016
Same author

PROPERTIES OF THE BEOSL DOSIMETRY SYSTEM IN THE FRAMEWORK OF A LARGE-SCALE PERSONAL MONITORING SERVICE.

Radiation protection dosimetry·2015
Same author

[Eye lens radiation exposure during ureteroscopy with and without a face protection shield: Investigations on a phantom model].

Der Urologe. Ausg. A·2015

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Exploring the Use of Isolated Expressions and Film Clips to Evaluate Emotion Recognition by People with Traumatic Brain Injury
05:51

Exploring the Use of Isolated Expressions and Film Clips to Evaluate Emotion Recognition by People with Traumatic Brain Injury

Published on: May 15, 2016

Comparing different error-conditions in film dosemeter evaluation.

H Roed1, M Figel

  • 1NIRH-National Board of Health, National Institute of Radiation Hygiene Copenhagen, Denmark. hro@sis.dk

Radiation Protection Dosimetry
|September 12, 2007
PubMed
Summary

Incorrect film insertion in personal dosemeters is a common issue, particularly among veterinarians. A comparison of two radiation monitoring services revealed significant differences in error rates, highlighting challenges in international data comparison.

More Related Videos

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification
08:05

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification

Published on: April 6, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 11, 2026

Exploring the Use of Isolated Expressions and Film Clips to Evaluate Emotion Recognition by People with Traumatic Brain Injury
05:51

Exploring the Use of Isolated Expressions and Film Clips to Evaluate Emotion Recognition by People with Traumatic Brain Injury

Published on: May 15, 2016

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification
08:05

Design and Analysis for Fall Detection System Simplification

Published on: April 6, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Radiation protection and dosimetry
  • Occupational health and safety

Background:

  • Personal dosemeters are crucial for evaluating radiation exposure.
  • Recognizing and marking error conditions is vital for accurate dose assessment.
  • Variations exist in how individual monitoring services (IMS) handle dosemeter errors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the error-marking practices of two distinct IMS from Denmark (NIRH) and Germany (GSF).
  • To identify common error conditions and their prevalence in film dosimetry.
  • To analyze error distributions across different employee categories.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of film dosemeter error data from NIRH and GSF for 2003.
  • Examination of error conditions including moisture, light exposure, contamination, and badge handling.
  • Categorization of errors by employee type (medicine, industry, veterinary, etc.).

Main Results:

  • Incorrect film insertion was the most frequent error at both IMS.
  • Veterinarians showed the highest error rates across employee categories.
  • NIRH reported a higher relative number of dosemeters with errors compared to GSF.

Conclusions:

  • Systemic and methodological differences between IMS and countries complicate direct comparisons.
  • Lack of standardized employee categorization hinders consistent analysis.
  • Addressing common errors like incorrect film insertion is key to improving dosimetry accuracy.