MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994904759 · doi:10.1259/bjr.74.883.740629

Equivalent dose to the fetus from occupational exposure of pregnant staff in diagnostic radiology

2001· article· en· W1994904759 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest Osei, C J Kotre

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquivalent doseMedicineRadiation protectionIonizing radiationFetusPregnancyMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomRadiological weaponLead apronObstetricsEffective dose (radiation)Nuclear medicineDosimetryRadiologyPhysicsIrradiation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The protection of the unborn children of pregnant women from ionizing radiations is very important because the fetus is particularly vulnerable to the effects of ionizing radiation. From the radiation protection perspective, the International Commission on Radiological Protection regards the unborn child as a member of the public when considering the occupational exposure of pregnant workers. The determination of the equivalent dose to the unborn child in diagnostic radiology is of interest as a basis for risk estimates from occupational exposures of the pregnant worker. In this paper, coefficients for converting dosemeter readings to equivalent dose to the fetus have been calculated using Monte Carlo simulation. X-ray transport was simulated by tracing individual photons through soft tissue phantoms. Equivalent dose to the uterus was used to simulate the equivalent dose to the fetus during the first 2 months of pregnancy. The Monte Carlo model was validated experimentally by direct measurements made in an Alderson female Rando phantom for a range of irradiation conditions. The two sets of data indicated good agreement with the Monte Carlo results, being relatively greater than the experimental results to a maximum of about 15%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207