Does the presence of an implant including expander with internal port alter radiation dose? An ex vivo model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of literature examining the dosimetric implications of irradiating breast implants and expanders with internal ports inserted at the time of mastectomy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the presence of breast expanders with port in saline or silicone implants affect the dose uniformity across the breast when irradiated with various photon and electron energies. METHODS: One tissue-equivalent torso phantom with overlying tissue expanders in saline or silicone implants were irradiated using tangential fields with 6 MV and 18 MV photons and 9 MeV and 12 MeV electrons. All dose measurements were performed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). The TLDs were arranged around the port and the perimeters of either the expander, or saline or silicone implant. Comparisons of measured radiation doses, and between the expected and measured doses of radiation from the TLDs on each prosthesis, were performed. Data were analyzed using two-tailed t tests. RESULTS: There were no differences in TLD measurements between the expander and the saline implant for all energy modalities, and for the expected versus actual measurements for the saline implant. Higher than anticipated measurements were recorded for a significant number of TLD positions around the silicone implants. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation doses around saline implants or expanders with internal port were unaltered, whereas dose recordings for silicone implants were higher than predicted in the present laboratory/ex vivo study.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".