Monitoring radiation use in cardiac fluoroscopy imaging procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Timely identification of systematic changes in radiation delivery of an imaging system can lead to a reduction in risk for the patients involved. However, existing quality assurance programs involving the routine testing of equipment performance using phantoms are limited in their ability to effectively carry out this task. To address this issue, the authors propose the implementation of an ongoing monitoring process that utilizes procedural data to identify unexpected large or small radiation exposures for individual patients, as well as to detect persistent changes in the radiation output of imaging platforms. METHODS: Data used in this study were obtained from records routinely collected during procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization imaging facility at St. Andrew's War Memorial Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, over the period January 2008-March 2010. A two stage monitoring process employing individual and exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) control charts was developed and used to identify unexpectedly high or low radiation exposure levels for individual patients, as well as detect persistent changes in the radiation output delivered by the imaging systems. To increase sensitivity of the charts, we account for variation in dose area product (DAP) values due to other measured factors (patient weight, fluoroscopy time, and digital acquisition frame count) using multiple linear regression. Control charts are then constructed using the residual values from this linear regression. The proposed monitoring process was evaluated using simulation to model the performance of the process under known conditions. RESULTS: Retrospective application of this technique to actual clinical data identified a number of cases in which the DAP result could be considered unexpected. Most of these, upon review, were attributed to data entry errors. The charts monitoring the overall system radiation output trends demonstrated changes in equipment performance associated with relocation of the equipment to a new department. When tested under simulated conditions, the EWMA chart was capable of detecting a sustained 15% increase in average radiation output within 60 cases (<1 month of operation), while a 33% increase would be signaled within 20 cases. CONCLUSIONS: This technique offers a valuable enhancement to existing quality assurance programs in radiology that rely upon the testing of equipment radiation output at discrete time frames to ensure performance security.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".