Dose assessment of digital tomosynthesis in pediatric imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the potential for digital tomosynthesis (DT) to reduce pediatric x-ray dose while maintaining image quality. We utilized the DT feature (VolumeRadTM) on the GE DefiniumTM 8000 flat panel system installed in the Winnipeg Children's Hospital. Facial bones, cervical spine, thoracic spine, and knee of children aged 5, 10, and 15 years were represented by acrylic phantoms for DT dose measurements. Effective dose was estimated for DT and for corresponding digital radiography (DR) and computed tomography (CT) patient image sets. Anthropomorphic phantoms of selected body parts were imaged by DR, DT, and CT. Pediatric radiologists rated visualization of selected anatomic features in these images. Dose and image quality comparisons between DR, DT, and CT determined the usefulness of tomosynthesis for pediatric imaging. CT effective dose was highest; total DR effective dose was not always lowest - depending how many projections were in the DR image set. For the cervical spine, DT dose was close to and occasionally lower than DR dose. Expert radiologists rated visibility of the central facial complex in a skull phantom as better than DR and comparable to CT. Digital tomosynthesis has a significantly lower dose than CT. This study has demonstrated DT shows promise to replace CT for some facial bones and spinal diagnoses. Other clinical applications will be evaluated in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".