MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061324949 · doi:10.1118/1.2961477

SU‐GG‐I‐79: Effective Doses to Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Patients Undergoing Chest CT Examinations

2008· article· en· W2061324949 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Donald Frey, Lynn Ansley Fordham, W Huda

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineEffective dose (radiation)Cystic fibrosisRadiologyDosimetryComputed tomographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To compare radiation doses to five year old pediatric patients with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) undergoing chest CT examinations at five North American imaging centers. Method and Materials: A questionnaire was sent to five facilities participating in a CF research study (Chapel Hill NC; Washington WA; St Louis Mo; Denver Co; Toronto ON) to obtain their protocols for chest CT examinations on a five year old child with Cystic Fibrosis. The ImPACT CT dose calculator was used to determine adult effective doses for techniques used at each facility (i.e., kV/mAs/pitch). Adult effective doses were scaled to those for five year olds to account for differences in scan length, patient size and energy imparted. Results: The five facilities used four different models of CT scanner from two vendors. CT techniques for five year old patients with CF were generally 120 kV, 60 mAs, and an average pitch ratio of ∼ 1.2. Adult scan lengths were 30 cm whereas those for 5 year olds were 15 cm. Adults weigh 70 kg compared to 18.5 kg for a 5 year old. For a single 360 ° x‐ray tube rotation, energy absorbed in the chest region of a five year old is only 55% of that for an adult. Three facilities had effective doses of ∼ 2.4 mSv, whereas two facilities had lower doses of ∼1.25 mSv. The main reasons for the lower doses were the use of lower x‐ray technique (i.e., 30 mAs) or a lower x‐ray tube voltage (i.e., 100 kV). Conclusion: Effective doses to 5 year old CF patients can be obtained by scaling adult effective doses, and average to 2 mSv per patient examination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207