An Evaluation of the Organ Dose Received by Cardiologists Arising From Angiography Examinations in Educational Hospital in Rasht
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interventional procedures, cine acquisitions and operation of fluoroscopic equipment in high-dose fluoroscopic modes, involve long fluoroscopic times which can lead to high staff doses. Also, Coronary angiography (CA) procedures require the cardiologist and assisting personnel to remain close to the patient, which is the main source of scattered radiation. Thus, radiation exposure is a significant concern for radiation workers and it is important to measure the radiation doses received by personnel and evaluate the parameters concerning total radiation burden. In this research, we investigated radiation doses to 10 cardiologists performing 120 CA procedures. Using thermo luminescent dosimeters doses to the wrists, thyroid and eyes per procedure were measured. Based on the measured dose values, maximum doses to the Left wrist, Right wrist, thyroid and eyes of cardiologist were measured 241.45 µSv, 203.17 µSv, 78.21 µSv and 44.58 µSv, respectively. The results of this study indicate that distance from the source, use of protective equipment's, procedure complexity, equipment performance, and cardiologist experience are the principal exposure-determining variables. It can be conclude that if adequate radiation protection approaches have been implemented, occupational dose levels to cardiologists would be within the regulated acceptable dose limits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".