Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Typical Radiographic Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for typical radiographic examinations in a fully digital imaging institution. METHODS: The initial survey included 6 standard radiographic projections performed in 19 computed radiography (CR) and digital radiography (DR) rooms. Because of the expected difference in the performance, the local reference levels were analysed separately for those 2 modalities. Data of 226 average size adult patients were included in the analysis. Entrance surface dose (ESD) was calculated from the recorded radiographic techniques and tube radiation output measurements. After observing wide variations in the results of the patient survey, the examinations were repeated by using anthropomorphic phantoms. Initial efforts to understand the reasons for dose variations were focused on CR chest, abdomen, pelvis, and lumbar spine examinations. RESULTS: The average size patient doses for similar examinations were lower in the DR rooms than in the CR rooms by factors that ranged from 1.2 to 3, with the exception of the chest examination. Standardization of the CR exposure index value allowed us to decrease ESD by 21%-30%. Detector sensitivity had an insignificant effect (2%) on ESD; proper collimation lowered the dose by 17%. However, the major effect, up to 46% difference, was found because of antiscatter grids cutoff. CONCLUSION: Modality specific local diagnostic reference levels for standard examinations have been established in a large digital imaging department with hybrid modalities. Typically the local reference values were lower than those recommended in Safety Code 35, except for CR chests. Factors that affect the dose variations have been investigated and determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".