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 Experiment Videos

Uncertainties in dosemeter intercomparison techniques

R M Harrison1, D J Rawlings

  • 1Regional Medical Physics Department, Newcastle General Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.

Physics in Medicine and Biology
|March 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Wide-Positive Matrix Factorisation of particle number size distributions: A new approach accounting for cyclically changing source profiles.

The Science of the total environment·2025
Same author

EURADOS STRATEGIC RESEARCH AGENDA 2020: VISION FOR THE DOSIMETRY OF IONISING RADIATION.

Radiation protection dosimetry·2021
Same author

Characterization of passive dosimeters in proton pencil beam scanning - A EURADOS intercomparison for mailed dosimetry audits in proton therapy centres.

Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB)·2021
Same author

High CT doses return to the agenda.

Radiation and environmental biophysics·2019
Same author

Dose distribution of secondary radiation in a water phantom for a proton pencil beam-EURADOS WG9 intercomparison exercise.

Physics in medicine and biology·2018
Same author

COMPARISON OF RESPONSE OF PASSIVE DOSIMETRY SYSTEMS IN SCANNING PROTON RADIOTHERAPY-A STUDY USING PAEDIATRIC ANTHROPOMORPHIC PHANTOMS.

Radiation protection dosimetry·2017
Same journal

Effective contrast-enhanced preprocessing for intracranial artery segmentation in digital subtraction angiography.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Improving Plan Quality in Adaptive Proton Therapy Using an Interactive Dose Modification Tool.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Technical Note: Real-Time MLC Control and Latency Measurement Optimization with External Verification.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Fetus-Specific Hematopoietic Stem Cell Dosimetry Framework for Leukemia-Relevant Target Cells During Prenatal Development.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Deep learning-based dose prediction to enhance planning efficiency in cervical brachytherapy with hybrid applicators.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum: Referenceless MR thermometry-a comparison of five methods (2017<i>Phys. Med. Biol</i>.<b>62</b>1-16).

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
See all related articles

Analyzing 180 intercomparisons of field dosemeters revealed significant variations. Repeating the calibration procedure is essential, as single interchanges can lead to up to 1% differences in readings.

Area of Science:

  • Metrology
  • Radiation Dosimetry

Background:

  • Intercomparison of field dosemeters is crucial for ensuring accurate radiation measurements.
  • Variations in readings can occur due to the interchange of ionization chambers during calibration.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze results from 180 intercomparisons of field dosemeters.
  • To study variations in readings caused by interchanging ionization chambers.
  • To establish uncertainty targets, action levels, and limits of acceptability for dosemeter comparisons.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of 180 intercomparisons using an NPL secondary-standard exposure meter.
  • Statistical evaluation of readings from interchangeable ionization chambers.
  • Calculation of geometric means from repeated calibration procedures.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Suggested percentage standard error of the mean for setting target uncertainty (0.3%), action level (0.5%), and limit of acceptability (1.0%).
  • Target uncertainty aligns with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates.
  • Repeated calibration procedures showed potential differences of up to +/- 1% between geometric means.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed uncertainty framework provides clear performance benchmarks for dosemeter intercomparisons.
  • The need for repeating intercomparison procedures is reinforced due to potential variations.
  • Accurate radiation dosimetry relies on rigorous calibration and intercomparison protocols.