2000
DOI: 10.1016/s1350-4487(00)00060-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The second international intercomparison on EPR tooth dosimetry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several international intercomparisons were undertaken in the past years, in which blind tests were performed in a varying number of laboratories (from 9 to 18) (Chumak et al, 1996a;Wieser et al, 2000b;Wieser et al, 2000c;Wieser et al 2005;Wieser et al, 2006a;Hoshi et al, 2007;Ivannikov et al, 2007;Chapter 1). Four of these intercomparisons were performed in the framework of EU-sponsored projects (Chumak et al, 1996a;Wieser et al, 2000b;Wieser et al, 2000c;Wieser et al 2005), and three of them had numeric titles, i.e., the 1st (Chumak et al, 1996a), the 2nd (Wieser et al, 2000c) and the 3rd Wieser et al, 2006a).…”
Section: International Intercomparisons and "Blind" Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Several international intercomparisons were undertaken in the past years, in which blind tests were performed in a varying number of laboratories (from 9 to 18) (Chumak et al, 1996a;Wieser et al, 2000b;Wieser et al, 2000c;Wieser et al 2005;Wieser et al, 2006a;Hoshi et al, 2007;Ivannikov et al, 2007;Chapter 1). Four of these intercomparisons were performed in the framework of EU-sponsored projects (Chumak et al, 1996a;Wieser et al, 2000b;Wieser et al, 2000c;Wieser et al 2005), and three of them had numeric titles, i.e., the 1st (Chumak et al, 1996a), the 2nd (Wieser et al, 2000c) and the 3rd Wieser et al, 2006a).…”
Section: International Intercomparisons and "Blind" Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four of these intercomparisons were performed in the framework of EU-sponsored projects (Chumak et al, 1996a;Wieser et al, 2000b;Wieser et al, 2000c;Wieser et al 2005), and three of them had numeric titles, i.e., the 1st (Chumak et al, 1996a), the 2nd (Wieser et al, 2000c) and the 3rd Wieser et al, 2006a). Another intercomparison is commonly called "Semipalatinsk Intercomparison" because one of its goals was to collectively measure doses to teeth of residents of the Semipalatinsk region (Chapter 18) Ivannikov et al, 2007).…”
Section: International Intercomparisons and "Blind" Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several dose assessment methods have been proposed in the past, an additive dose method, a partial calibration method, and the use of a universal calibration curve (standard dose response curve) [51]. The additive dose method is based on sample response to an additional dose.…”
Section: Epr Dosimetrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These include deconvolution, spectrum subtraction, selective saturation, and second derivative methods [51,55]. The deconvolution method uses mathematical approximation of EPR signals using the first least-square technique or the second approximation routine, which is based on the multivariate statistical decomposition method [1,56].…”
Section: Epr Dosimetrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A significant number of laboratories around the world have set up this method by developing specific protocols of measurement. Since 1996 several international comparison programmes of EPR tooth dosimetry have been devised to assess the state of the art, and disseminate the expertise among laboratories (Chumak et al, 1996;Wieser et al, 2000Wieser et al, , 2005Wieser et al, , 2006bHoshi et al, 2007;Ivannikov et al, 2007). Regardless of their design, these inter-laboratory comparisons were all aimed at examining the capability of the participating laboratories to assess an unknown dose delivered to teeth.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%