Strategies and Scientific Basis of Dose Reduction on State-of-the-Art Multirow Detector X-Ray CT Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continued development in multirow detector computed tomography (MDCT) technology accompanied by tremendous enhancement in the clinical utility and rapid increase in the number of MDCT scanners worldwide are causing a steep rise in the number of diagnostic computed tomography (CT) procedures performed each year. The everincreasing use of this X-radiation-based imaging technique has raised radiation protection concerns among the clinical community and general public. To address these concerns, significant efforts have been made by the clinical community as well as industry, research, and government organizations. Because of these efforts, modern MDCT systems are now equipped with a variety of tools that can lead to "radiation dose-optimized" CT images if used properly. This review describes CT dose metrics and their limitations, radiation dose reduction techniques and strategies implemented using modern MDCT scanners, and the role of research and regulatory organizations in developing guidelines and regulations to facilitate the adoption of the dose reduction strategies. An account of further developments required to achieve submillisievert X-ray CT doses and to make X-ray CT a radiation risk-free imaging modality is also given. A detailed description of the scientific basis and controversies surrounding the linear no threshold (LNT) model, which forms the basis of all radiation dose reduction strategies, is also provided in this review. According to the LNT model, there is no amount of radiation that is safe or beneficial for human beings. Based on recent epidemiological studies, despite all of the controversies, the LNT model continues to be the basis of the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle of radiation protection framework in CT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".