Adult Fingers Visualized on Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Chest Radiographs: What You Don't See
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In a previous publication, it was revealed that a disturbingly high incidence of adult fingers were seen on pediatric intensive care unit radiographs, an example of inappropriate occupational exposure to diagnostic radiation. The present study examined adult fingers seen on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) radiographs to assess the frequency of this occupational radiation exposure. During this study, we encountered an unexpected issue. The inappropriately exposed fingers appeared on the raw images but were sometimes cropped during technologist image processing before being sent to the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) for interpretation. Our audit describes the frequency of cropping adult fingers from images before display on PACS, with the intent of unmasking this source of occupational radiation exposure, of which quality assurance personnel may not be aware. METHODS: At the x-ray workstation, the raw NICU source x-ray images were analysed for the visibility of adult fingers and then were compared with the final processed images sent to PACS by the x-ray technologist. RESULTS: Of 230 radiographs audited, 30 (13%) contained fingers directly in the x-ray beam that remained visible on PACS, 22 (10%) contained fingers in the direct beam that were cropped before being sent to PACS for analysis, and 44 (19%) contained fingers in the coned area. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of adult fingers are being exposed to radiation during the acquisition of NICU radiographs. Cropping NICU radiographs before sending them to PACS can conceal a significant source of occupational radiation exposure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".