¿Es suficiente la protección otorgada por gafas plomadas en cardiología intervencionista?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not known whether leaded glass goggles with 0.25 mm Pb equivalency, used in interventional cardiology procedures, attenuate radiation below the levels established by the latest recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). AIM: To assess if the degree of attenuation of the secondary ionizing radiation achieved by the use of 0.25 mm Pb leaded glass goggles, in occupationally exposed workers in interventional cardiology procedures, meets the latest ICRP recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective investigation was carried out to compare the eye exposure to secondary ionizing radiation received by occupationally exposed personnel in a 9 months period. A set of two thermo luminescent dosimeters was arranged in the front and back of leaded glass goggles in a cohort of seven members of an interventional cardiology service, exposed to 1057 consecutive procedures. RESULTS: The monthly dose equivalent measurement performed in front of the goggles ranged between 1.1 and 6.5 mSv, for paramedics and interventional cardiologists. The radiation measured in the back of the glass varied between 0.66 and 2.75 mSv, respectively. The degree of attenuation of the dose at eye level ranged from 40% to 57.7%, respectively. The projected annual exposure would reach 33 mSv for the interventional cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: With a similar load of work and wearing 0.25 mm Pb equivalent glass goggles, interventional cardiologists will exceed the crystalline equivalent dose limit recommended by the ICRP (20 mSv/year averaged over the past 5 years).
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".