A Radiation Dose Reduction Technology to Improve Patient Safety During Cardiac Catheterization Interventions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A novel radiation dose reduction technology was evaluated in a cardiac catheterization laboratory during routine clinical care to determine if it could reduce radiation dose to patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. These results were compared to patients undergoing similar procedures in a cardiac catheterization laboratory without this technology. BACKGROUND: There is a safety priority in clinical care to reduce X-ray radiation dose to patients in order to lower the risk of deterministic and stochastic effects. Dose reduction technologies must be verified in clinical settings to prove if they reduce X-ray radiation dose and to what extent. METHODS: Radiation dose data and procedure characteristics of 268 consecutive patients were collected and analyzed from a cardiac catheterization laboratory with dose reduction technology installed (referred to as Lab A, n = 135) and from a cardiac catheterization laboratory without this technology (referred as Lab B, n = 133). RESULTS: For diagnostic procedures, the median total dose-area product in Lab A was reduced by 46% (P < 0.0001) compared to Lab B, with no differences in terms of body mass index (P = 0.180), total fluoroscopy times (P = 1), number of acquired images (P = 0.920), and contrast medium (P = 0.660). For interventional procedures, the median total dose-area product in Lab A was reduced by 34% (P = 0.015) compared to Lab B, with no differences in terms of body mass index (P = 0.665), total fluoroscopy times (P = 0.765), number of acquired images (P = 0.923), and contrast medium (P = 0.969). CONCLUSIONS: This new dose reduction technology significantly reduces X-ray radiation dose without affecting fluoroscopy time, number of images, and contrast medium used during diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it