Cited by 521Radiation Dose and ImagingRadiation Therapy and DosimetryEffects of Radiation Exposure

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor ( Q ), and radiation weighting factor ( w R ): ICRP Publication 92: Approved by the Commission in January 2003

Valentin, J.·2003·Annals of the ICRP

Abstract

The effect of ionising radiation is influenced by the dose, the dose rate, and the quality of the radiation. Before 1990, dose-equivalent quantities were defined in terms of a quality factor, Q(L), that was applied to the absorbed dose at a point in order to take into account the differences in the effects of different types of radiation. In its 1990 recommendations, the ICRP introduced a modified concept. For radiological protection purposes, the absorbed dose is averaged over an organ or tissue, T, and this absorbed dose average is weighted for the radiation quality in terms of the radiation weighting factor, w(R), for the type and energy of radiation incident on the body. The resulting weighted dose is designated as the organ- or tissue-equivalent dose, H(T). The sum of the organ-equivalent doses weighted by the ICRP organ-weighting factors, w(T), is termed the effective dose, E. Measurements can be performed in terms of the operational quantities, ambient dose equivalent, and personal dose equivalent. These quantities continue to be defined in terms of the absorbed dose at the reference point weighted by Q(L). The values for w(R) and Q(L) in the 1990 recommendations were based on a review of the biological and other information available, but the underlying relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values and the choice of w(R) values were not elaborated in detail. Since 1990, there have been substantial developments in biological and dosimetric knowledge that justify a re-…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0146-6453(03)00024-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most significant change in neutron wR from ICRP Publication 60 to 92 stemmed from disregard of the much higher photon component of the neutron dose when low energy neutrons interact in a larger size receptor.

    “The most significant change in neutron wR from ICRP Publication 605 to its reevaluation in ICRP Publication 926 stemmed indeed from the disregard of the much higher photon component of the neutron dose when low energy neutrons interact in a larger size receptor.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 190 · Cited by 521

Authors
Valentin, J.
Corresponding author
Valentin, J.
Venue
Annals of the ICRP
Published
2003-10
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
1-121
ISSN
  • 0146-6453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1872-969X
OpenAlex
W2766008769
Cited by
521
References
190
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 28
FWCI
10.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the ICRP (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
Keywords
relative biological effectiveness, radiation weighting factor, quality factor, radiation quality, stochastic effects, deterministic effects, ICRP recommendations, radiation protection, effective dose
MeSH terms
Body Burden, Cataract, Corneal Opacity, Environmental Exposure, Humans, International Cooperation, Models, Biological, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Organ Specificity, Radiation Dosage, Radiation Protection, Radiation, Ionizing, Radiometry, Reference Standards, Relative Biological Effectiveness, Societies, Guidelines as Topic, Advisory Committees

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review