Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Characterization and ex vivo application of flexible 2D scintillating coatings in ultra-high dose rate electron beams for FLASH radiotherapy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A flexible scintillating sheet paired with a CMOS camera can map ultra-high-dose-rate electron beams in real time, preserving linearity with pulse count on flat and curved surfaces.

desk verdict A useful, honest feasibility study for flexible 2D scintillation dosimetry in UHDR beams, but the headline linearity numbers are softer than they look because the correction factor is fit to the same data. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15824 v1 pith:A7UKEZGF submitted 2025-04-22 physics.med-ph

Verdi Vanreusel , Stephen Brown , Shujat Ali , Thomas De Kerf , Anthony J. Doemer , Paul Leblans , Benjamin Movsas , Humza Nusrat
show 6 more authors
Behzad Shirmard Kundan Thind Steve Vanlanduit Dirk Verellen Alessia Gasparini Luana de Freitas Nascimento
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords FLASHradiotherapyUHDRdosimetry2Dscintillatingsheetreal-timepreclinicalelectronbeamsYAG:CeCMOScamera
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that a flexible scintillating sheet, read out by a triggered CMOS camera, can serve as a real-time two-dimensional dosimeter for non-homogeneous ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron beams in preclinical FLASH radiotherapy. The authors show that the light signal grows linearly with the number of delivered pulses on flat surfaces ($R^2>0.998$), remains linear when up to 3 cm of transparent bolus is added ($R^2>0.995$), follows the inverse-square law with source-to-surface distance ($R^2>0.963$), and stays linear on curved ex vivo rat and mouse setups ($R^2 \ge 0.997$). They also demonstrate that triggered acquisition avoids missed pulses and that setup-induced variations stay within 5%. The stated value is an unmet need: biological FLASH experiments require per-pulse, spatially resolved dose information in beams that are not flat, and this system is presented as a workable relative-dosimetry answer.

What carries the argument

The central object is a flexible sheet of cerium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (YAG:Ce) crystals embedded in silicone (about 30% particle loading), which emits light in proportion to the radiation dose rate, plus a global-shutter CMOS camera that records the light patterns. The mechanism that makes pulse-resolved dosimetry work in this paper is triggered acquisition: the camera is synchronized to the linac's monitor-chamber trigger so every pulse is captured, avoiding the dead-time missed pulses of free-running mode. Because the sheet's decay and afterglow exceed the inter-pulse interval, the paper introduces a ramp-up correction $k(x)$, built as the inverse of an averaged normalized time trace, to convert the rising per-frame signal into a per-pulse signal. A projective transformation maps the camera view to a beam's-eye view. The linear response with pulse number, bolus thickness, and inverse-square SSD is what the machinery is used to establish.

What would settle it

Deliver the same total number of pulses in randomized sequences (for example, 5, 15, 40, and 90 pulses in different orders) to a fresh sheet at fixed geometry, with the camera gain lowered to avoid saturation; if the corrected signal per pulse varies by more than the claimed few percent across sequences, the ramp-up correction is history-dependent and the reported linearity does not generalize. Monitoring the first-pulse signal over time while varying inter-irradiation gaps would directly test the sensitization mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a camera-read flexible YAG:Ce scintillating coating provides pulse-resolved two-dimensional dose maps in a converted clinical linac's UHDR electron beam, with a response that is linear in delivered pulses and independent of average dose rate over the tested range. The paper demonstrates this in a flat-field characterization and then in three ex vivo preclinical geometries—rat brain, mouse hindlimb, and whole-body mouse—where the sheet is molded to curved surfaces and linearity is preserved. The authors further claim the system is robust to camera set-up differences (within 5%) and repeatable (within 2% across irradiations), and they identify the practical boundary: with small field sizes the light output is too low for usable maps, and a single camera leaves blind spots on curved surfaces. Their conclusion is not that the system is ready for absolute dosimetry, but that it is feasible for relative real-time 2D dosimetry in non-homogeneous UHDR beams, provided it is recalibrated per setup.

Load-bearing premise

The ramp-up correction assumes that every pulse produces the same light output for a given dose, independent of how many pulses were delivered before it; the paper's own data show deviations of up to roughly 20% for short irradiations and saturation artifacts for one camera, so the generality of the linearity claims rests on this assumption holding across setups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Preclinical FLASH experiments can obtain real-time, spatially resolved relative dose maps of non-homogeneous UHDR electron beams, instead of relying only on passive film or point dosimeters.
  • Triggered acquisition resolves individual linac pulses, so dose per pulse and its spatial variation can be read directly during an irradiation.
  • Because the signal stays linear with bolus thickness up to 3 cm and follows the inverse-square law, the system can track dose buildup and beam divergence in realistic setups.
  • The flexible sheet's conformity to curved anatomy makes surface dosimetry possible for rat brain, mouse hindlimb, and whole-body mouse irradiations, with stability within a few percent.
  • For small fields (below about $0.7\times 0.7$ cm² with the tested cameras), the light output is too low for reliable maps, so field-size constraints must be respected.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the proposed trap-related sensitization is confirmed, a pre-irradiation filling protocol or per-pulse self-normalization could remove the need for a fixed ramp-up correction and move the system toward absolute dosimetry.
  • The authors' suggested multi-camera arrangement could not only remove blind spots but also allow 3D surface dose reconstruction on contoured subjects, extending the method beyond a single beam's-eye view.
  • With machine-log timestamps added to triggered frames, the system could recover the lost time information and report average dose rate per irradiation, closing the gap identified in the paper.
  • The same sheet-and-camera combination could plausibly be adapted to other pulsed UHDR modalities, such as pencil-beam scanning protons or very-high-energy electrons, where the trigger and decay trade-off is adjusted for those pulse structures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript characterizes a flexible 2D scintillating-coating camera system for real-time relative dosimetry in an ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron beam from a converted Varian Trilogy linac. The authors investigate triggered versus free-running acquisition, apply a ramp-up correction to the pulse-by-pulse signal, and report linearity with delivered pulse count (R²>0.998 without bolus, R²>0.995 with bolus), inverse-square dependence on SSD (R²>0.963), robustness to camera setup variations within 5%, and preservation of linearity in three ex vivo preclinical geometries (rat brain, mouse hindlimb, whole-body mouse). They also document challenges including signal saturation in the C-blue camera, reduced signal-to-background ratio under ambient light, blind spots on curved surfaces, and a history-dependent sensitization of the scintillating sheet. The paper explicitly limits the system to relative dosimetry and notes that recalibration is required when the setup changes.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are sustained, this is a useful feasibility demonstration of real-time 2D scintillation dosimetry for non-homogeneous UHDR preclinical beams, addressing an unmet need in FLASH radiobiology. The work is careful in several respects: it identifies the dead-time problem in free-running acquisition, uses triggered acquisition with an extended integration window, provides side-by-side comparison with radiochromic film, and reports realistic ex vivo scenarios with curved surfaces. The supplementary material, including the time-trace data and sensitization plot, supports transparency. However, the central linearity and robustness claims are weakened by two confounds—the ramp-up correction derived from the same dataset and a cumulative sensitization effect—so the quantitative R² values and 'within 5%' robustness statement are not independently established as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1.1, Equations (1)-(2) and Figure 4] The ramp-up correction k(x) is constructed from an average of six normalized time traces from deliveries of 40-90 pulses, which is a subset of the same dose-linearity dataset that Figure 4 uses to claim linearity with pulse count. Since k(x) normalizes each pulse to the final-pulse signal, summing corrected frames for an N-pulse delivery yields approximately N times a constant whenever the pulse-to-pulse shape matches the calibration average. Consequently, the R²>0.998 linearity in total signal versus pulse count is largely insensitive to per-pulse deviations, and the lower panel of Figure 4 shows such deviations: the average signal per pulse is lower by 19.5% (C-blue) and 22.5% (Basler) at low pulse counts. The linearity claim therefore does not demonstrate accurate per-pulse dose proportionality; it only shows that the integrated corrected signal scales with pulse number after a correction that is fitted to the same data. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should validate the correction on independent irradiations (e.g., a separate calibration run or comparison with film at low pulse counts) or explicitly restrict the claim to total integrated signal with the caveat that per-pulse accuracy is limited below 20-40 pulses.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Figure A6] The history-dependent sensitization described in Section 4.2 is a direct confound for the dose-linearity experiment. The linearity measurements were performed in ascending pulse order (1 to 90 pulses) with irradiations often less than 5 minutes apart, and Figure A6 shows that the signal per pulse increases when subsequent irradiations are close in time, which the authors attribute to filling of OSL-like traps. This means that the reported increase in total signal with pulse count could be partly due to cumulative sensitization rather than an intrinsic linear dose response, and the same confound affects the ex vivo linearity results where the ramp-up correction from the characterization was reused. The authors propose a plausible mechanism but do not quantify its contribution or test it with a randomized-order control in the main dataset. I request either a controlled experiment (e.g., interleaved pulse counts with long resting intervals) or an explicit sensitivity analysis showing that the linearity R² values are not driven by this effect.
  3. [Section 3.3, Figure A4] The robustness claim of 'within 5% for camera setup differences' is based on data from which one C-blue outlier, deviating 25.8% from the average, was excluded. No predefined exclusion criterion is given, so the claim is not falsifiable as stated. The authors should report all data points, state the exclusion rule, or show that the conclusion is unchanged with and without the outlier. In addition, the text acknowledges that the assumption of identical dose per pixel across rotations is unlikely to hold because of the Gaussian beam profile and backscatter variations, so the 5% figure conflates setup variability with delivery variability; this limitation should be stated alongside the robustness claim.
  4. [Section 3.1, Figure 3c] The saturation of the C-blue camera during the construction of the ramp-up correction causes over-correction for 5 and 90 pulses and under-correction for 40 pulses, as the authors themselves note in Section 3.1. This directly affects the C-blue linearity results in Figure 4a, which are reported with R²>0.999. The authors should either re-analyze the C-blue data with a non-saturated calibration trace or state which of the reported linearity metrics are affected by the saturation and why the R² values remain meaningful despite the known correction error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2.1] There are several typographical errors: 'prelcinical' in the abstract, 'investigation' used as a verb in Section 2.2, 'T able 1' in the manuscript text, and 'V erdi' in the CRediT statement. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.2.1] The frame rates are reported as '554.9 and 1000.0 kHz' for the C-blue and Basler cameras; given the camera specifications (frame rates of 1594.7 and 751.9 Hz), these values should be in Hz, not kHz.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Figure 6a] The last three data points in the inverse-square plot for the C-blue camera deviate from linearity, and the text attributes this to a change in camera-sheet distance with SSD. Since these points are part of the reported R²>0.963, the authors should clarify whether the R² is computed over all data points or only over the linear region, and if the latter, state the range explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Appendix A] The text refers to 'supplementary Figure A1', 'A2', and 'A3', but the figures are located in an appendix after the main text and are not labeled as supplementary in the appendix header. Please harmonize the referencing (e.g., 'Appendix A, Figure A1') and ensure all cited figures are present and legible.
  5. [Section 4.1] The claim that the decay time of the Ce-doped YAG sheet exceeds the inter-pulse time is unexpected because bulk YAG:Ce has a ~100 ns decay; the authors propose an interaction with the silicon matrix as a hypothesis. This is an important observation for the dosimetric applicability, and a quantitative estimate of the effective decay constant from the time traces would strengthen the discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; only a disclosed in-sample ramp-up calibration that does not force the headline linearity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1.1 (ramp-up correction, S''(x)=S'(x)·k(x); Figures 3a–3d), applied in Section 3.2 (Figure 4)]
    "To obtain k(x), a representative normalized time trace was constructed. This was an average of 6 time traces where 40-90 pulses were delivered, normalized by the respective signals of the last pulse. Then k(x) was defined as the inverse of this time trace as successively explained in Figure 3."

    The same pulse trains (40–90 pulses) used to build k(x) are part of the dose-linearity dataset in Figure 4. Since k(x) is the inverse of the averaged normalized trace, applying it to those calibration traces makes each corrected pulse approximately equal to the last-pulse plateau value, so the corrected total signal for N pulses is approximately N times that plateau by construction. This is an in-sample calibration loop rather than an independent prediction. It is non-load-bearing, however, because the paper also reports linearity without the correction, explicitly discloses residual per-pulse deviations of 19.5–22.5% at low pulse counts, and attributes the remaining trend to a history-dependent sensitization not encoded in k(x).

full rationale

This is an empirical characterization paper, not a derivation, so there is no mathematical self-definition, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation. The only in-sample loop is the ramp-up correction k(x), which is fitted to averaged time traces from 40–90 pulse deliveries and then applied to the same system for the dose-linearity assessment. That correction makes the corrected per-pulse signal for the calibration trains approximately equal to the last-pulse signal by construction, so the corrected cumulative signal for those counts is close to N times a constant. However, the paper presents linearity both with and without the correction, shows that per-pulse signals still deviate by 19.5–22.5% at low pulse counts, and discusses an unmodeled sensitization effect in Section 4.2. Thus the headline R² values are not forced by the correction; the correction is disclosed calibration rather than a hidden prediction. Self-citations to Vanreusel et al. [23] provide background and a comparison sample, but the linearity, SSD, bolus, and ex vivo measurements reported here are independently acquired. The robustness and repeatability findings are direct measurements with no circular dependence. Overall, no load-bearing circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental characterization with no derivational circularity. The only fitted quantity is the ramp-up correction factor, which is a calibration curve rather than a physical parameter. The axioms are standard experimental domain assumptions for scintillation dosimetry; none are ad hoc to this paper, though the constant-dose-per-pulse assumption is explicitly weakened by the sensitization observations.

free parameters (1)
  • Ramp-up correction factor k(x) = inverse of an average normalized time trace from 6 deliveries of 40-90 pulses
    Introduced in Section 2.1.1 to correct triggered-acquisition signal for the slow decay/afterglow of the sheet. It is fitted from the system's own time traces, depends on camera settings (iris, gain, integration window), and must be re-derived when settings change. The resulting corrected signal is used for all linearity and robustness claims.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption YAG:Ce scintillation light output is proportional to dose rate (and hence dose per pulse) over the tested range
    Section 2.1 and the linearity analysis assume the camera grey value scales linearly with dose. The paper itself observes saturation for the C-blue camera under some settings, so this axiom is conditional on camera settings and field size.
  • domain assumption The number of delivered pulses is a valid surrogate for absorbed dose, with constant dose per pulse within each irradiation
    Section 2.2.2 states that because film position varied by <1 cm in a non-homogeneous beam, the number of pulses was used as the dose surrogate. If dose per pulse varies pulse-to-pulse, the linearity and per-pulse signal comparisons are affected.
  • domain assumption Radiochromic EBT XD film provides a correct passive reference for relative dose comparison
    Film is used throughout as the reference dosimeter and to check for delivery discrepancies. The paper notes film saturates above 21.6 Gy, so this assumption holds only below saturation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization and ex vivo application of flexible 2D scintillating coatings in ultra-high dose rate electron beams for FLASH radiotherapy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7UKEZGF

@misc{pith2026250415824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization and ex vivo application of flexible 2D scintillating coatings in ultra-high dose rate electron beams for FLASH radiotherapy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7UKEZGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15824}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing interest in FLASH-RT has lead to the conversion of linear accelerators to enable ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) beams for preclinical research. Dosimetry hereof remains challenging with several crucial aspects missing. This work shows the challenges for real-time 2D UHDR dosimetry, and aims to present a solution in the context of preclinical irradiations in non-homogeneous UHDR electron beams. An experimental camera-scintillation sheet combination, was used to investigate the spatial dose distribution of a converted UHDR Varian Trilogy. The dosimetric system was characterized by variation of the number of pulses and source to surface distance (SSD) and its application was investigated by variation of bolus thickness and ambient light intensity. The challenges of prelcinical real time 2D dosimetry with scintillating coatings were assessed by ex vivo irradiations of a rat brain, mouse hindlimb and whole body mouse. Radiochromic EBT XD film was used as passive reference dosimeter. The coating showed a linear response with the number of pulses in the absence and presence of transparent bolus, up to 3 cm thick, and with the inverse squared SSD. The presence of ambient light reduces the signal-background ratio. The sheet showed to have sufficient flexibility to be molded on the subjects' surface, following its curvatures. Linearity with number of pulses was preserved in a preclinical setting. For small field sizes the light output became too low, resulting in noisy dose maps. The system showed robust within 5% for camera set up differences. Calibration of the system was complicated due to set up variations and the inhomogeneity of the beam. We showed the need for 2D real-time dosimetry to determine beam characteristics in non-homogeneous UHDR beams using a preclinical setting. We presented one solution to meet this need with scintillating based dosimetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The camera setup with both cameras positioned as high as possible to minimize the angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Time traces of a free running- (purple squares) and triggered- (beige circles) recording [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The upper graphs show the normalized time traces for a delivery of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The linearity of the dosimetric system with the number of pulses, hence dose, with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The linearity of the dosimetric system with the number of pulses, hence dose, with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Verification of the inverse square law for the dosimetric system and radiochromic film for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signal and background signal variation with ambient light intensity, collected by (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ex vivo setups to mimic a rat brain, mouse hindlimb and whole body-mouse ir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The normalized signal corresponding to a single pulse of an irradiation of a rat brain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice

    Favaudon V, Caplier L, Monceau V, Pouzoulet F, Sayarath M, Fouillade C, et al. Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice. Science translational medicine. 2014; 6(245): 245ra93–245ra93

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Ultra-high dose rate radiation production and delivery systems intended for FLASH

    Farr J, Grilj V, Malka V, Sudharsan S, Schippers M. Ultra-high dose rate radiation production and delivery systems intended for FLASH. Medical physics. 2022; 49(7): 4875–911

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Recording and reporting of ultra-high dose rate “FLASH” delivery for preclinical and clinical settings

    B¨ ohlen TT, Psoroulas S, Aylward JD, Beddar S, Douralis A, Delpon G, et al. Recording and reporting of ultra-high dose rate “FLASH” delivery for preclinical and clinical settings. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2024; 200: 110507

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Definition of dose rate for FLASH pencil-beam scanning proton therapy: A comparative study

    Deffet S, Hamaide V, Sterpin E. Definition of FLASH dose rate in pencil beam scanning: a comparative study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02056. 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    All irradiations that are ultra-high dose rate may not be FLASH: the critical importance of beam parameter characterization and in vivo validation of the FLASH effect

    Vozenin MC, Montay-Gruel P, Limoli C, Germond JF. All irradiations that are ultra-high dose rate may not be FLASH: the critical importance of beam parameter characterization and in vivo validation of the FLASH effect. Radiation Research. 2020; 194(6): 571–2

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy: Why and how? Radiotherapy and Oncology

    Bourhis J, Montay-Gruel P, Jorge PG, Bailat C, Petit B, Ollivier J, et al. Clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy: Why and how? Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2019; 139: 11–17

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Design, implementation, and in vivo validation of a novel proton FLASH radiation therapy system

    Diffenderfer ES, Verginadis II, Kim MM, Shoniyozov K, Velalopoulou A, Goia D, et al. Design, implementation, and in vivo validation of a novel proton FLASH radiation therapy system. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2020; 106(2): 440–8

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    In vivo validation and tissue sparing factor for acute damage of pencil beam scanning proton FLASH

    Sørensen BS, Sitarz MK, Ankjærgaard C, Johansen J, Andersen CE, Kanouta E, et al. In vivo validation and tissue sparing factor for acute damage of pencil beam scanning proton FLASH. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2022; 167: 109–15

    work page 2022

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Towards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy

    Vozenin MC, Bourhis J, Durante M. Towards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2022; 19(12): 791–803

    2022

  2. [10]

    A 2D strip ionization chamber array with high spatiotemporal resolution for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy

    Yang Y, Shi C, Chen CC, Tsai P, Kang M, Huang S, et al. A 2D strip ionization chamber array with high spatiotemporal resolution for proton pencil beam scanning FLASH radiotherapy. Medical Physics. 8 Aug. 2022; 49: 5464–75. issn: 24734209. doi: 10.1002/mp.15706

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Quantitative, real-time scintillation imaging for experimental comparison of different dose and dose rate estimations in UHDR proton pencil beams

    Clark M, Harms J, Vasyltsiv R, Sloop A, Kozelka J, Simon B, et al. Quantitative, real-time scintillation imaging for experimental comparison of different dose and dose rate estimations in UHDR proton pencil beams. Medical Physics. Sept. 2024. issn: 24734209. doi: 10.1002/mp.17247

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    A 2D detector array for relative dosimetry and beam steering for FLASH radiotherapy with electrons

    Sch¨ onfeld AA, Hildreth J, Bourgouin A, Flatten V, Kozelka J, Simon W, Sch¨ uller A. A 2D detector array for relative dosimetry and beam steering for FLASH radiotherapy with electrons. Medical Physics. Dec. 2024. issn: 24734209. doi: 10.1002/mp.17573

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Design and Characterization of a Novel Scintillator Array for In Vivo Monitoring During UHDR PBS Proton Therapy

    Vasyltsiv R, Harms J, Clark M, Gladstone DJ, Pogue BW, Zhang R, Bruza P. Design and Characterization of a Novel Scintillator Array for In Vivo Monitoring During UHDR PBS Proton Therapy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06598. 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    4D in vivo dosimetry for a FLASH electron beam using radiation-induced acoustic imaging

    Bjegovic K, Sun L, Pandey P, Grilj V, Ballesteros-Zebadua P, Paisley R, et al. 4D in vivo dosimetry for a FLASH electron beam using radiation-induced acoustic imaging. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 11 June 2024; 69. issn: 13616560. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad4950. 16

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Spatial and temporal dosimetry of individual electron FLASH beam pulses using radioluminescence imaging

    Rahman M, Ashraf MR, Zhang R, Gladstone DJ, Cao X, Williams BB, et al. Spatial and temporal dosimetry of individual electron FLASH beam pulses using radioluminescence imaging. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2021; 66(13): 135009

    2021

  8. [16]

    Characterization of a new scintillation imaging system for proton pencil beam dose rate measurements

    Rahman M, Br˚ uˇ za P, Langen KM, Gladstone DJ, Cao X, Pogue BW, Zhang R. Characterization of a new scintillation imaging system for proton pencil beam dose rate measurements. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2020; 65(16): 165014

    2020

  9. [17]

    single-pulse beam characterization for FLASH-RT using optical imaging in a water tank

    Ashraf MR, Rahman M, Zhang R, Cao X, Williams BB, Hoopes PJ, et al. single-pulse beam characterization for FLASH-RT using optical imaging in a water tank. Medical physics. 2021; 48(5): 2673–81

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ultra-fast, high spatial resolution single-pulse scintillation imaging of synchrocyclotron pencil beam scanning proton delivery

    Clark M, Ding X, Zhao L, Pogue B, Gladstone D, Rahman M, et al. Ultra-fast, high spatial resolution single-pulse scintillation imaging of synchrocyclotron pencil beam scanning proton delivery. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 4 Feb. 2023; 68. issn: 13616560. doi: 10.1088/1361-...

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    High spatiotemporal resolution scintillation imaging dosimetry of proton pencil beams on a pulse-by-pulse basis at FLASH and clinical dose rates

    Goddu S, Ji Z, Hao Y, Setianegara J, Green W, Zhang T, et al. High spatiotemporal resolution scintillation imaging dosimetry of proton pencil beams on a pulse-by-pulse basis at FLASH and clinical dose rates. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2024; 11: 100061

    2024

  12. [20]

    Two-dimensional time-resolved scintillating sheet monitoring of proton pencil beam scanning FLASH mouse irradiations

    Kanouta E, Bruza P, Johansen JG, Kristensen L, Sørensen BS, Poulsen PR. Two-dimensional time-resolved scintillating sheet monitoring of proton pencil beam scanning FLASH mouse irradiations. Medical Physics. 7 July 2024; 51: 5119–29. issn: 24734209. doi: 10.1002/mp.17049

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    A prototype scintillator real-time beam monitor for ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy

    Levin DS, Friedman PS, Ferretti C, Ristow N, Tecchio M, Litzenberg DW, et al. A prototype scintillator real-time beam monitor for ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy. Medical Physics. 4 Apr. 2024; 51: 2905–23. issn: 24734209. doi: 10.1002/mp.17018

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Active dosimetry for VHEE FLASH radiotherapy using beam profile monitors and charge measurements

    Rieker VF, Corsini R, Stapnes S, Adli E, Farabolini W, Grilj V, et al. Active dosimetry for VHEE FLASH radiotherapy using beam profile monitors and charge measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and A...

    2024

  15. [23]

    A dose rate independent 2D Ce-doped YAG scintillating dosimetry system for time resolved beam monitoring in ultra-high dose rate electron “FLASH” radiation therapy

    Vanreusel V, Heinrich S, De Kerf T, Leblans P, Vandenbroucke D, Vanlanduit S, et al. A dose rate independent 2D Ce-doped YAG scintillating dosimetry system for time resolved beam monitoring in ultra-high dose rate electron “FLASH” radiation therapy. Sensors and Actuators A: Ph...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Review of real time 2D dosimetry in external radiotherapy: Advancements and techniques

    Freitas Nascimento L de, Gasparini A. Review of real time 2D dosimetry in external radiotherapy: Advancements and techniques. Radiation Measurements. Jan. 2025; 180. issn: 13504487. doi: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2024.107344

    2025

  17. [25]

    Radioluminescence Dosimetry in Modern Radiation Therapy

    Darafsheh A, Goddu SM, Williamson J, Zhang T, Sobotka LG. Radioluminescence Dosimetry in Modern Radiation Therapy. Advanced Photonics Research. 2024; 5(9): 2300350

    2024

  18. [26]

    Verification system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with scintillator

    Ando Y, Miki K, Araki J, Tsuneda M, Kiriu H, Nishio T, Nagata Y. Verification system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy with scintillator. Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2021; 44: 9–21. 17

    2021

  19. [27]

    Vanreusel V, Vallet H, Wijnen J, Cˆ ot´ e B, Leblans P, Sterckx P, et al. In-Vivo Dosimetry for Ultra-High Dose Rate (UHDR) Electron Beam FLASH Radiotherapy Using an Organic (Plastic), an Organic–Inorganic Hybrid and an Inorganic Point Scintillator System. Photonics. 2024; 11(...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    MRI-tracked tumor vascular changes in the hours after single-fraction irradiation

    Brown SL, Nagaraja TN, Aryal MP, Panda S, Cabral G, Keenan KA, et al. MRI-tracked tumor vascular changes in the hours after single-fraction irradiation. Radiation research. 2015; 183(6): 713–21

    2015

  21. [29]

    Selective inhibition of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation mitigates radiation-induced cognitive impairment

    Jenrow KA, Brown SL, Lapanowski K, Naei H, Kolozsvary A, Kim JH. Selective inhibition of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation mitigates radiation-induced cognitive impairment. Radiation Research. 2013; 179(5): 549–56

    2013

  22. [30]

    Combined atorvastatin and ramipril mitigate radiation-induced impairment of dentate gyrus neurogenesis

    Jenrow KA, Liu J, Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Lapanowski K, Kim JH. Combined atorvastatin and ramipril mitigate radiation-induced impairment of dentate gyrus neurogenesis. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2011; 101: 449–56

    2011

  23. [31]

    Ramipril mitigates radiation-induced impairment of neurogenesis in the rat dentate gyrus

    Jenrow KA, Brown SL, Liu J, Kolozsvary A, Lapanowski K, Kim JH. Ramipril mitigates radiation-induced impairment of neurogenesis in the rat dentate gyrus. Radiation Oncology. 2010; 5: 1–8

    2010

  24. [32]

    Modification of radiation injury by ramipril, inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme, on optic neuropathy in the rat

    Kim JH, Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Jenrow KA, Ryu S, Rosenblum ML, Carretero OA. Modification of radiation injury by ramipril, inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme, on optic neuropathy in the rat. Radiation research. 2004; 161(2): 137–42

    2004

  25. [33]

    A novel mechanism of high dose radiation sensitization by metformin

    Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Isrow DM, Al Feghali K, Lapanowski K, Jenrow KA, Kim JH. A novel mechanism of high dose radiation sensitization by metformin. Frontiers in oncology. 2019; 9: 247

    2019

  26. [34]

    Plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, mitigates skin radiation-induced injury in mice

    Kim JH, Kolozsvary A, Jenrow KA, Brown SL. Plerixafor, a CXCR4 antagonist, mitigates skin radiation-induced injury in mice. Radiation research. 2012; 178(3): 202–6

    2012

  27. [35]

    Mitigation of radiation-induced skin injury by AAV2-mediated MnSOD gene therapy

    Yan S, Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Freytag SO, Lu M, Kim JH. Mitigation of radiation-induced skin injury by AAV2-mediated MnSOD gene therapy. The journal of gene medicine. 2008; 10(9): 1012–8

    2008

  28. [36]

    Radiation-induced skin injury in the animal model of scleroderma: implications for post-radiotherapy fibrosis

    Kumar S, Kolozsvary A, Kohl R, Lu M, Brown S, Kim JH. Radiation-induced skin injury in the animal model of scleroderma: implications for post-radiotherapy fibrosis. Radiation Oncology. 2008; 3: 1–7

    2008

  29. [37]

    Differential radiation effect in tumor and normal tissue after treatment with ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

    Kohl RR, Kolozsvary A, Brown SL, Zhu G, Kim JH. Differential radiation effect in tumor and normal tissue after treatment with ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Radiation Research. 2007; 168(4): 440–5

    2007

  30. [38]

    Novel Small Molecule, UTS-1401, as a Radioprotector for Total-Body Irradiation

    Valeriote FA, Brown SL, Media J, Li P, Maheshwari M, Shaw J. Novel Small Molecule, UTS-1401, as a Radioprotector for Total-Body Irradiation. Radiation research. 2024; 202(1): 16–25

    2024

  31. [39]

    Antioxidant diet supplementation starting 24 hours after exposure reduces radiation lethality

    Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Liu J, Jenrow KA, Ryu S, Kim JH. Antioxidant diet supplementation starting 24 hours after exposure reduces radiation lethality. Radiation research. 2010; 173(4): 462–8

    2010

  32. [40]

    Histone deacetylase inhibitors protect against and mitigate the lethality of total-body irradiation in mice

    Brown SL, Kolozsvary A, Liu J, Ryu S, Kim JH. Histone deacetylase inhibitors protect against and mitigate the lethality of total-body irradiation in mice. Radiation research. 2008; 169(4): 474–8

    2008

  33. [41]

    Ce 3+-Doped garnet phosphors: composition modification, luminescence properties and applications

    Xia Z, Meijerink A. Ce 3+-Doped garnet phosphors: composition modification, luminescence properties and applications. Chemical Society Reviews. 2017; 46(1): 275–99. 18

    2017

  34. [42]

    Properties of the YAG : Ce scintillator

    Moszynski M, Ludziejewski T, Wolski D, Klamra W, Norlin LO. Properties of the YAG : Ce scintillator. 1994: 461–7

    1994

  35. [43]

    Modifying a clinical linear accelerator for delivery of ultra-high dose rate irradiation

    Lempart M, Blad B, Adrian G, B¨ ack S, Kn¨ o¨ os T, Ceberg C, Petersson K. Modifying a clinical linear accelerator for delivery of ultra-high dose rate irradiation. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2019; 139: 40–45

    2019

  36. [44]

    Electron FLASH delivery at treatment room isocenter for efficient reversible conversion of a clinical LINAC

    Rahman M, Ashraf MR, Zhang R, Bruza P, Dexter CA, Thompson L, et al. Electron FLASH delivery at treatment room isocenter for efficient reversible conversion of a clinical LINAC. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2021; 110(3): 872–82

    2021

  37. [45]

    Infrared Stimulated Luminescence of Ce3+ Doped YAG Crystals

    Bilski P, Mrozik A, Gieszczyk W, Nizhankovskiy S, Zorenko Y. Infrared Stimulated Luminescence of Ce3+ Doped YAG Crystals. Materials. 23 Dec. 2022; 15. issn: 19961944. doi: 10.3390/ma15238288

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Influence of shallow traps on time-resolved optically stimulated luminescence measurements of Al2O3: C, Mg

    Denis G, Akselrod M, Yukihara E. Influence of shallow traps on time-resolved optically stimulated luminescence measurements of Al2O3: C, Mg. Journal of Applied Physics. 2011; 109(10)

    2011

  39. [47]

    A short-time fading study of Al2O3: C

    Nascimento L, Vanhavere F, Silva E, De Deene Y. A short-time fading study of Al2O3: C. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2015; 106: 26–32

    2015

  40. [48]

    Shallow and deep trap emission and luminescence quenching of TiO 2 nanoparticles on Cu doping

    Choudhury B, Dey M, Choudhury A. Shallow and deep trap emission and luminescence quenching of TiO 2 nanoparticles on Cu doping. Applied Nanoscience. 2014; 4: 499–506. 19 A Supplementary Fig. A1: The recording of a rat brain irradiation with different bolus’ thickness. 20 Fig. ...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.