ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVE DOSE FROM CONE BEAM CT IMAGING IN SPECT/CT EXAMINATION IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER MODALITIES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess radiation dose from the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) component of single photon emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) examinations and to compare it with the radiopharmaceutical related dose as well as dose from multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Effective dose (ED) from computed tomography (CT) was estimated using dose-length product values and anatomy-specific conversion factors. The contribution from the SPECT component was evaluated using ED per unit administered activity for the radiopharmaceuticals listed in the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publications 80 and 106. With the exception of cardiac studies (0.11 mSv), the CBCT dose (3.96-6.04 mSv) was similar to that from the radiopharmaceutical accounting for 29-56 % of the total ED from the examination. In comparison with MDCT examinations, the CBCT dose was 48 and 42 % lower for abdomen/pelvis and chest/abdomen/pelvis scans, respectively, while in the chest the CBCT scan resulted in higher dose (23 %). Radiation dose from the CT component should be taken into consideration when evaluating total SPECT/CT patient dose.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it