MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991069229 · doi:10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14704

Effective Dose to Children during Cardiac Catheterization

2013· article· en· W1991069229 on OpenAlexaff
A. Begum, RK Khan, K. M. Zobair Alam, Amanul Hoque, Amena Begum

Bibliographic record

VenueBangladesh Journal of Medical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac catheterizationThermoluminescent dosimeterFluoroscopyRadiation exposureCoronary angiographyRadiation protectionNuclear medicineRadiologyCardiologyDosimetryDosimeter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess the effective dose received by children during cardiac procedures. 6 children from 3 to 14 years old who underwent coronary angiogram, cardiac catheterization and pulmonary valvuloplasty treatment were included in the present study. Measurement of effective doses of the paediatric cardiac patients was performed in four catheterization laboratories in three hospitals. Harshaw TLD badges (TLD-100, LiF: Mg, Ti) were used on patients to measure effective dose in the catheterization laboratory. The TLD badges were calibrated from Secondary Standard Dosimetery Laboratory. It is found that the highest dose was 2.01 mSv in 5.4 minute fluoroscopic time during peripheral angiogram and primary pace maker procedure and the lowest effective dose was 0.044 mSv in 1.2 minute fluoroscopic time during coronary angiography performed in the same hospital. The highest fluoroscopic time (18:14 min) was taken to perform a cardiac catheterization and pulmonary valvuloplasty procedure and the dose was 0.781 mSv. During cardiac catheterization children were exposed to high levels of radiation but there was a variant in dosage. Careful consideration should be given to minimize dosage by practicing ALARA principle. This type of study may lead cardiologist and scientist to improve necessary safety measures to be taken to reduce the exposure to patients and occupational worker. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14704 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.4 No.1 2011 145-147

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBangladesh Journal of Medical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207