MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Large-body radiation doses following radioiodine therapy

2002· article· en· W2313671875 on OpenAlexaffabout
William D. Leslie, J. HAVELOCK, R. Palser, Douglas N. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomMedicineRadiological weaponNuclear medicineRadiation protectionEuropean unionEffective dose (radiation)Adult maleRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In accordance with the recommendations of the International Radiological Protection Commission, the current maximum acceptable radiation dose limits for members of the public have been reduced to 1 mSv in the United States, Canada, and European Union countries including the United Kingdom. This has had a significant impact on radiation protection guidelines for contacts of patients treated with 131I. Many previous recommendations have relied upon models which may overestimate dose rates at short distances. We therefore undertook measurements of 131I dose rates using adult and infant phantoms that more accurately reflected true geometry. Effective dose calculations and patient contact restrictions were then derived from these direct dose measurements. Doses received by the adult phantom were measured at three distances (contact, 1.0 m, 2.0 m) and doses received by the infant phantom were measured at contact in two orientations (adult cradling infant over shoulder and at waist). The doses measured were significantly lower than previously predicted for the adult and infant phantom. Our measurements suggest that patient contact restrictions could be made less stringent than those currently in widespread use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207