MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100214708 · doi:10.1148/radiol.11101575

Lead versus Bismuth-Antimony Shield for Fetal Dose Reduction at Different Gestational Ages at CT Pulmonary Angiography

2011· article· en· W2100214708 on OpenAlexaff
Leslie Chatterson, David A. Leswick, D. Fladeland, Megan M. Hunt, Stephen T. Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsGovernment of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineBismuthAntimonyImaging phantomLead apronDosimeterDiaphragm (acoustics)Radiation protectionDosimetryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare the effective fetal dose reduction at different stages of gestation during maternal computed tomographic (CT) pulmonary angiography by using traditional lead apron and bismuth-antimony shields combined with limited z-axis and tube current. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom with gravid prosthesis, 0.5-mm lead, and two grades of bismuth-antimony shield was used. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) measured radiation in the first- to third-trimester uterus. Fetal dose was determined for each gestation by using 100 kVp to the costophrenic angles (CPAs) with and without shielding for a total of 12 scans. Eight third-trimester scans were used to compare shields using 120 kVp to CPAs versus those using 100 kVp to the diaphragm. RESULTS: Average fetal dose increased with gestation with use of 100 kVp to CPAs, from 0.11 mGy in first trimester to 0.50 mGy in third trimester. Average third-trimester unshielded fetal dose was reduced from 0.82 mGy by using 120 kVp to CPAs to 0.17 mGy (79%, P < .001) by using 100 kVp to the diaphragm. Lead apron reduced dose more than either of the bismuth-antimony shields (72%-79% vs 57%-81%) with use of 100 kVp to CPAs. Shields reduced the dose by 73% (lead), 62% (90% attenuation bismuth-antimony), and 72% (95% attenuation bismuth-antimony) (P < .01) at 120 kVp to CPAs. No significant difference between shields was demonstrated with 100 kVp to the diaphragm (P < .01). Maternal dose was 8.13 mSv at 120 kVp to CPAs, 4.90 mSv at 100 kVp to CPAs, and 4.02 mSv at 100 kVp to the diaphragm. CONCLUSION: Reducing voltage and limiting z-axis is more effective than shields at reducing fetal dose. Shielding improves reduction with no significant difference between lead and bismuth-antimony shields when conservative scanning parameters are observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207