Abdominal Computed Tomography Angiography at 80kV: feasibility study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: preliminary evaluation of different dose reduction algorithms in abdominal Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) with standard scan protocols at 120kV vs. 80kV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: prospective, randomized, crossover study. 60 consecutive patients who underwent CTA of the abdomen (Sensation 64, Siemens; Iomeprol 400 mgl/ml Bracco) for suspected or diagnosed Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) were enrolled in the study. A standard 120kV/200mAs scan protocol was acquired in all patients (reference tube current modulated with Automatic Exposure Control). In each patient a second scan with 80kV/300mAs (Group 1; n. 20), 80kV/400mAs (Group 2; n. 20), 80kV/500mAs (Group 3; n. 20) was acquired. We used the same scan/reconstruction parameters with the same amount and kind of contrast medium. The radiation dose, the aortic attenuation values, the noise and the signal/noise ratio (S/N) were evaluated. RESULTS: the mean dose was 9.7±2.7mSv for 120kV (all patients), 3.6±0.8mSv in Group1 (80kV), 5.0±0.6mSv in Group 2 (80kV) and 5.9±1.2mSv in Group 3 (80kV), respectively. The aortic attenuation was 350±59HU (120kV) vs. 534±100HU (80kV), 12±3.5 (120kV) vs. 8.8±3.6 (80kV) for the whole population. Aortic attenuation and S/N were: 328±40HU (120kV) vs. 494±61HU (80kV), 11±2 (120kV) vs. 7±2 (80kV) in Group1; 353±77HU (120kV) vs. 551±117HU (80kV), 11±2.8HU (120kV) vs. 8.4±2.6 (80kV) in Group 2; 389±55HU (120kV) vs. 598±117HU (80kV), 15±5 (120kV) vs. 12±5 (80kV) in Group 3, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: in abdominal CTA, the 80kV/400mAs scan protocol allows a radiation dose reduction of 50% without a significant reduction of S/N ratio.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".