Cited by 913Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

MIRD Pamphlet No. 21: A Generalized Schema for Radiopharmaceutical Dosimetry—Standardization of Nomenclature

Open access
Bolch, Wesley E., Eckerman, Keith F., Sgouros, George, Thomas, Stephen R.·2009·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

The internal dosimetry schema of the Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) Committee of the Society of Nuclear Medicine has provided a broad framework for assessment of the absorbed dose to whole organs, tissue subregions, voxelized tissue structures, and individual cellular compartments for use in both diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine. The schema was originally published in 1968, revised in 1976, and republished in didactic form with comprehensive examples as the MIRD primer in 1988 and 1991. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is an organization that also supplies dosimetric models and technical data, for use in providing recommendations for limits on ionizing radiation exposure to workers and members of the general public. The ICRP has developed a dosimetry schema similar to that of the MIRD Committee but has used different terminology and symbols for fundamental quantities such as the absorbed fraction, specific absorbed fraction, and various dose coefficients. The MIRD Committee objectives for this pamphlet are 3-fold: to restate its schema for assessment of absorbed dose in a manner consistent with the needs of both the nuclear medicine and the radiation protection communities, with the goal of standardizing nomenclature; to formally adopt the dosimetry quantities equivalent dose and effective dose for use in comparative evaluations of potential risks of radiation-induced stochastic effects to patients after nuclear medicine procedures; and to discuss the need to identify dosimetry quantities based on absorbed dose that address deterministic effects relevant to targeted radionuclide therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.108.056036

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Current 3-dimensional imaging modalities SPECT and PET have the resolution and counting statistics needed to quantify macroscale nonuniformities but not microscale nonuniformities.

    “Also related to these nonuniformities is the fact that current 3-dimensional imaging modalities -SPECT and PET -have the resolution and counting statistics needed to quantify macroscale nonuniformities (e.g., kidney renal cortex vs. overall kidney volume) but not assess nonuniformities at the microscale (e.g., renal tubule vs. renal glomerulus) level.”

    From Normal-Tissue Tolerance to Radiopharmaceutical Therapies, the Knowns and the Unknowns (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Mean Absorbed Dose Rate section (page unavailable) describes calculating absorbed-dose distributions at the level of SPECT or PET image voxels, supporting the claim that these modalities can assess spatial variation at an imaged scale. It does not state that their resolution or counting statistics are sufficient for the cited macroscale example, or that they cannot assess microscale nonuniformities such as differences between renal tubules and glomeruli. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30 (Part 1). Oxford, U.K.: ICRP; 1979.
  2. Feinendegen LE, McClure JJ. Alpha-emitters for medical therapy: workshop of the United States Department of Energy. Radiat Res. 1997;148:195-201.
  3. Back T, Andersson H, Divgi CR, et al. 211 At radioimmunotherapy of sub- cutaneous human ovarian cancer xenografts: evaluation of relative biologic effec- tiveness of an a-emitter in vivo. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:2061-2067.
  4. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP publication 58: RBE for deterministic effects. Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1-100.
  5. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). ICRP publication 92: relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (wR). Ann ICRP. 2004;33:1-121.
  6. Behr TM, Memtsoudis S, Sharkey RM, et al. Experimental studies on the role of antibody fragments in cancer radio-immunotherapy: influence of radiation dose and dose rate on toxicity and anti-tumor efficacy. Int J Cancer. 1998;77:787-795.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bolch, W. E., Eckerman, K. F., Sgouros, G., & Thomas, S. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2009-03
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
477-484
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2032747682
Cited by
913
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 28
FWCI
19.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Keywords
radiopharmaceutical dosimetry, MIRD schema, terminology standardization, absorbed dose, specific absorbed fraction, fraction absorbed, dose coefficients, equivalent dose, effective dose, radiation protection, stochastic radiation effects, deterministic effects, targeted radionuclide therapy
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Radiation Dosage, Relative Biological Effectiveness, Stochastic Processes, Radiopharmaceuticals

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