Analysis of intercomparison results of national biological dose estimation capability in 2022
10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20230726-00021
- VernacularTitle:2022年全国生物剂量估算和染色体畸变分析能力比对结果分析
- Author:
Yan PAN
1
;
Jianlei RUAN
;
Gang GAO
;
Chunnan PIAO
;
Jianxiang LIU
Author Information
1. 中国疾病预防控制中心辐射防护与核安全医学所 辐射防护与核应急中国疾病预防控制中心重点实验室，北京 100088
- Keywords:
Radiaton hygiene;
Biological dose estimation;
Chromosome aberration analysis;
Intercomparison
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2024;44(3):223-227
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To improve the ability of radiation health technical institutions for biological dose estimation.Methods:A total of 144 institutions nationwide, including the CDC, prevention and treatment center for occupational disease, colleges and universities, scientific research institutes, nuclear industry systems, and medical and physical examination institutions, were organized to carry out the intercomparison of national biological dose estimation capabilities in 2022. The institutions participating in the comparison were divided into two types of A and B, through the identification of chromosome aberrations, to estimate the irradiation dose (A) or chromosome aberration rate (B). The results were summarized and compared, and the main problems were analyzed and discussed.Results:There were 60 institutions in type A, 52 qualified institutions (including 12 excellent institutions) and 8 unqualified institutions, with a pass rate of 86.7% (20.0% excellent) and a failure rate of 13.3%. There were 84 institutions participating in the biological dose estimation comparison of type B, with 48 qualified institutions, and 36 unqualified institutions, the qualified rate was 57.1%, and the unqualified rate was 42.9%.Conclusions:Most of the institutions participating in type A comparison have the ability to estimate biological dose, and more than half of the institutions participating in type B comparison have the ability to analyze chromosome aberration. The overall ability of institutions participating in type A comparison is higher than in type B.
