Poster — Thur Eve — 06: Dose assessment of cone beam CT imaging protocols as part of SPECT/CT examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess radiation dose from the cone beam CT (CBCT) component of SPECT/CT studies and to compare with other CT examinations performed in our institution. Methods: We used an anthropomorphic chest phantom and the 6 cc ion chamber to measure entrance breast dose for several CBCT and diagnostic CT acquisition protocols. The CBCT effective dose was calculated with ImPACT software; the CT effective dose was evaluated from the DLP value and conversion factor, dependent on the anatomic region. The RADAR medical procedure radiation dose calculator was used to assess the nuclear medicine component of exam dose. Results: The entrance dose to the breast measured with the anthropomorphic phantom was 0.48 mGy and 9.41 mGy for cardiac and chest CBCT scans; and 4.59 mGy for diagnostic thoracic CT. The effective doses were 0.2 mSv, 3.2 mSv and 2.8 mSv respectively. For a small patient represented by the anthropomorphic phantom, the dose from the diagnostic CT was lower than from the CBCT scan, as a result of the exposure reduction options available on modern CT scanners. The CBCT protocols used the same fixed scanning techniques. The diagnostic CT dose based on the patient data was 35% higher than the phantom dose. For most SPECT/CT studies the dose from the CBCT component was comparable with the dose from the radiopharmaceutical. Conclusions: The patient radiation dose from the cone beam CT scan can be higher than that from a diagnostic CT and should be taken into consideration in evaluating total SPECT/CT patient dose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".