MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147241486

Estimation of Radiation Dosimetry for some Common SPECT-CT Exams

2013· article· en· W2147241486 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aida Mhiri, I. Slim, M. Jemai Ghezaiel, M.F. Ben Slimène

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biotechnology for Wellness Industries · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineMedicineDosimetrySingle-photon emission computed tomographyTomographyEffective dose (radiation)Radiation exposureMedical physicsMedical imagingSpect imagingEmission computed tomographyRadiologyPositron emission tomography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single photon emission computed tomography associated to X ray computed tomography (SPECT-CT) is a nuclear medicine tomographic imaging technique which improves diagnostic accuracy for particular clinical indications due to the possible attenuation and/or scatter correction of the SPECT functional images and the availability of helpful anatomic information. However, the introduction of CT in the nuclear diagnostic process results in a significant increase of the patient dose. Ideally is to establish sufficient image quality for a specific diagnostic task with the lowest effective dose to the patient in order to reduce stochastic effects. Indication of SPECT-CT should be made to adhere to the “As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)” principle and ensure that the patient is not subjected to unnecessarily high levels of radiation. In this study, we evaluate effective doses received during some standard nuclear medicine exams from 100 patients who underwent SPECT-CT in our department and analyze parameters involved in variation of these doses according to the literature data.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designBench or experimental · Other design
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biotechnology for Wellness IndustriesSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207