TU‐E‐330D‐05: Potential Radiation Guidance Levels for Invasive Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: An International Atomic Energy Coordinated Research Program investigated the feasibility of providing guidance levels for fluoroscopically guided invasive cardiology procedures. Method and Materials: A sample of 6,000 cases of coronary angiography (CA), coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or combined CA and PTCA from ten laboratories in four different countries were used for the analysis. Dosimetric and patient demographic data were collected. Intercalibration of kerma area product (KAP) meters and quality control tests were periodically performed. Image quality and skin dose distributions were evaluated in a small sample of procedures. Procedure complexity was evaluated in a subset of 1,000 PTCA cases. Results: Classification into three clean categories proved difficult due to the rapid evolution of interventional cardiology and considerable variability in routine clinical practice among the centers. It may be better to categorize cases as either coronary angiography only (DX) or interventional, with a variable CA component (RX). Median values of KAP (for similar procedures) varied by a factor of three between centers. Complexity has a factor of two influence on KAP. The data suggest that a laboratory can normalize its data by complexity scaling. Dose inefficient laboratories were identified by noting that the median value of procedures exceeded the third‐quartile value for the entire pool. One laboratory exceeded the guidance level because of the use of 25 fps imaging in place of the more common 12.5 fps. Another laboratory, not under routine QA testing, had high fluoroscopic and cinefluorographic dose rates. Conclusion: Guidance levels for invasive cardiology appear to be feasible. Suggested KAP guidance levels for a facility performing procedures of moderate complexity are 50 Gycm 2 for DX and 120 Gycm 2 for RX. These values should identify dose inefficient laboratories. Guidance for fluoro time and cine frame count is being developed. Further research is needed as clinical procedures and technologies evolve.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".