MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081187499 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2281020874

Radiation Exposure at Chest CT: A Statement of the Fleischner Society

2003· review· en· W2081187499 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Mayo, John E. Aldrich, Néstor L. Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation doseNuclear medicineRadiation exposureMedical physicsRadiation protectionPopulationMedical radiationComputed tomographyRadiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of helical single-detector row computed tomography (CT) and, more recently, multi-detector row CT has greatly increased the clinical indications for CT. Correspondingly, CT examinations now account for greater than one-half of the radiation dose due to medical procedures in the population of North America. The level of CT radiation dose, especially in the pediatric population, is of concern to radiologists, medical physicists, government regulators, and the media. This review addresses this problem with particular reference to radiation dose in chest CT. Specifically it outlines the topics of measurement units used to quantify radiation exposure, factors affecting CT scanner dose efficiency, scanner settings that determine the administered radiation dose, and radiation dose reduction in chest CT. A table of reference dose values is provided. Given the wide variation documented in chest CT radiation exposure, the authors suggest that reference standards be promoted to minimize excessive CT radiation exposure. In addition, further research into the complex relationship between radiation exposure, image quality, and diagnostic accuracy should be encouraged in order to establish the minimum radiation dose necessary to provide adequate diagnostic information for standard clinical questions.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations359
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207