Radiation Dose from Diagnostic Computed Tomography in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To calculate the effective dose from diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scans in Saskatchewan, Canada, and compare with other reported dose levels. METHODS: Data from CT scans were collected from 12 scanners in 7 cities across Saskatchewan. The patient age, scan type, and selected technique parameters including the dose length product and the volume computed tomography dose index were collected for a 2-week period. This information then was used to calculate effective doses patients are exposed to during CT examinations. Data from 2,061 clinically indicated CT examinations were collected, and of them 1,690 were eligible for analysis. Every examination during a 2-week period was recorded without selection. RESULTS: The average provincial estimated patient dose was as follows: head, 2.7 mSv (638 scans; standard deviation [SD], +/-1.6); chest, 11.3 mSv (376 scans; SD, +/-8.9); abdomen-pelvis, 15.5 mSv (578 scans; SD, +/-10.0); abdomen, 11.7 mSv (80 scans; SD, +/-11.48), and pelvis, 8.6 mSv (18 scans; SD, +/-6.04). Significant variation in dose between the CT scanners was observed (P = .049 for head, P = .001 for chest, and P = .034 for abdomen-pelvis). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the estimated dose from diagnostic CT examinations was similar to other previously published Canadian data from British Columbia. This dose varied slightly from some other published standards, including being higher than those found in a review conducted in the United Kingdom in 2003.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".