Identifying Institutional Diagnostic Reference Levels for CT with Radiation Dose Index Monitoring Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate radiation optimization efforts over 4 years for three computed tomography (CT) protocols and to determine institutional (local) diagnostic reference levels for prospective tracking by using automated radiation dose index monitoring software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval for this retrospective observational study was obtained from the hospital research ethics board, and the need to obtain informed consent was waived. The study followed a 48-month radiation dose optimization effort in a large academic inner-city trauma and quaternary referral center. Exposure according to equipment, protocol, and year (2010-2013) for adult patients was determined for routine unenhanced head CT examinations, CT pulmonary angiography examinations, and CT examinations for renal colic. Mean exposure (as volume CT dose index [CTDIvol] and dose-length product [DLP]) was averaged to establish local diagnostic reference levels. Means and 75th percentiles for 2013 were compared with findings from surveys in Canada and diagnostic reference levels for similar protocol types internationally. Student t tests were performed to assess significance between annual means, and χ(2) tests were performed for changes in categoric variables. RESULTS: There were 36 996 examinations in 25 234 patients. There was an average exposure reduction of 22% for CTDIvol and 13% for DLP from 2010 to 2013. In 2013, mean CTDIvol for routine head examinations was 50.8 mGy ± 3.7 (standard deviation), 11.8 mGy ± 5.6 for CT pulmonary angiography examinations, and 10.2 mGy ± 4.2 for renal colic CT examinations, while mean DLP was 805.7 mGy · cm ± 124.3, 432.8 mGy-cm ± 219.9, and 469.4 mGy · cm ± 209.2, respectively. The mean CTDIvol and DLP in 2013 were at or close to identified reference values; however, additional optimization is required to reach "as low as reasonably achievable" values for all examinations. CONCLUSION: Automated methods of radiation dose data collection permit a detailed analysis of radiation dose according to protocol and equipment over time. Radiation dose optimization measures were effective, but their full value may be realized only with changes in internal processes and real-time, prospective data monitoring and analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".