Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(2)
Average absorbed doses determined with the local deposition method are in excellent agreement with those obtained using the MIRD and the kernel-convolution dose calculation approach.
However, on average, absorbed doses to the tumor insert have been found to be consistent to within 9%, except for dose calculations performed on day 1, where the standard deviation over the average absorbed dose values is 20%.
Similar(58)
For an administration of the clinically envisaged activity of 148 MBq (4 mCi) of 124I-IAZGP, the average absorbed dose to the parenchymal organs was estimated at 0.47 cGy with the kidney receiving an average absorbed dose of 0.83 cGy.
The mean average absorbed dose increased by 11.2 ± 6.9 Gy.
Insert: comparison between average absorbed dose per unit activity into the cylindrical insert.
As a general rule, all dose algorithms provided comparable dose estimates with deviations within 9%, except for dose calculations performed on day 1, where the standard deviation over the average absorbed dose values is 20%.
All dose algorithms provided comparable dose estimates with deviations below 9%, except for dose calculations performed on day 1, where the standard deviation over the average absorbed dose values is 20%.
A comparison of the calculated average absorbed dose is shown in Fig. 5, where the different dose calculation algorithms were applied to each of the clinical condition reported in Fig. 2k o.
In an intravenous urography (IVU) study, Almen et al. showed an average absorbed dose per exposure of 0.68 mGy (range 0.48 to 1.10 mGy) for pediatric patients aged between 0 and 1 year [17].
The highest average absorbed dose estimate to the parenchymal organ was 0.056 mGy/MBq (0.21 cGy/mCi) to the kidney followed by 0.044 mGy/MBq (0.16 cGy/mCi) to the liver.
Methods IV V allow the average absorbed dose to the tumor insert to be determined assuming that the cylindrical insert is uniformly filled with a known 90Y activity concentration.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com