Consistency checks of results from a Monte Carlo code intercomparison for emitted electron spectra and energy deposition around a single gold nanoparticle irradiated by X-rays

Experimental benchmark data for Monte Carlo simulated radiation effects of gold nanoparticles. Part I: Experiment and raw data analysis

“…The results from such MC simulations often show a wide range of outcomes between different studies [16,17]. However, a recent comparison exercise [18,19] demonstrated that some of the confusion in the literature is due to conceptional misunderstandings [13][14][15] or to a lack of quality assurance of simulation results [20,21].…”

“…The expected number np of photon interactions in an AuNP is proportional to the absorbed dose D and to the volume of the AuNP or the third power of its diameter, d g [13,20], and can be estimated by…”

“…In the MC comparison exercise, the largest differences between simulations performed with different codes were seen in the ancillary results for the energy spectra of emitted electrons [18,19], especially at low energies. Discrepancies remained for some results after all necessary corrections were made to the originally reported ones [20]. A major reason for these remaining discrepancies was that one code used a newly developed dataset of cross sections for electron interactions in gold at energies down to the ionization threshold, which was derived from theoretical models [28].…”

A simulation study on the radiosensitization properties of gold nanorods

“…However, current understanding suggests that the term 'deposited energy ratio' may better express the methodology used in their study. Moreover, it is now acknowledged that the use of a confined photon beam in the EURADOSexercise has led to a significant underestimation of the absorbed dose in the water shells (Rabus et al 2021a, Rabus et al 2021b. This underestimation is mainly due to the absenceof charged particle equilibrium (CPE), and also the lack of secondary photon equilibrium (SPE) as a result of neglecting the contribution of Compton and Rayleigh scattering.…”

EURADOS working group 6, computational dosimetry, a history of promoting good practice via intercomparisons and training

“…A summary of the exercises is provided in the last article of the Special Issue (Rabus et al, 2022), which presents the findings and common conclusions from the ten articles reporting the results of each exercise (De Saint-Hubert et al, 2021Eakins et al, 2021;Gómez-Ros et al, 2021Huet et al, 2022;Rabus et al, 2021;Villagrasa et al, 2022;Zankl et al, 2021bZankl et al, , 2021c. One of these issues was the correct assessment of bone marrow dose, which prompted the inclusion of an article in this special issue explaining the ICRP-recommended method for bone marrow dosimetry (Zankl et al, 2021a).…”