Physicians' Perceptions of Teratogenic Risk Associated with Radiography and CT During Early Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine family physicians' and obstetricians' perceptions of the risk of major fetal malformations associated with exposure to radiation from radiography and CT during early pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Structured questionnaires were sent to 400 family physicians and 100 obstetricians selected randomly across Ontario, Canada. The physicians were informed about the 1-3% baseline risk for major malformations and were asked about their perceptions of the risk to the fetus associated with an abdominal radiograph and an abdominal CT scan during early pregnancy and whether they would recommend a therapeutic abortion after such exposure. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (218/400) of the family physicians and 69% (69/100) of the obstetricians responded to our questionnaire. Forty-four percent of family physicians estimated the risk associated with an abdominal radiograph to be 5% or greater, and 61% estimated the risk associated with an abdominal CT scan to be 5% or greater. Eleven percent of obstetricians estimated the risk associated with radiographs to be 5% or greater (p < 0.001), and 34% estimated the risk associated with CT scans to be 5% or greater (p < 0.001). Among family physicians, 1% recommended an abortion if the fetus was exposed to radiation from radiography and 6% after exposure to radiation from CT. None of the obstetricians recommended an abortion after exposure to radiation from an abdominal radiograph, but 5% recommended an abortion after exposure to radiation from an abdominal CT scan in early pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Our survey shows that physicians who care for pregnant women perceive the teratogenic risk associated with an abdominal radiograph and an abdominal CT scan to be unrealistically high during early pregnancy. This misperception could lead to increased anxiety among pregnant women seeking counseling and to unnecessary terminations of otherwise wanted pregnancies. This perception of high teratogenic risk associated with radiation could also lead to a delay in needed care of pregnant women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".