Radiation Dose from 3D Rotational vs. Conventional 2D Digital Subtraction Angiography in Intracranial Aneurysm Coiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient effective dose resulting from two alternative imaging protocols for pre-coiling assessment of intracranial aneurysms: a series of 2D Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) projections, and a 3D rotational angiography (RA) acquisition. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, we investigated 44 patients who underwent endovascular coiling in our institution. Images were acquired on a biplane Image Intensifier system not equipped with dose-area product (DAP) meter. Conventional 2D DSA images were simulated with an anthropomorphic skull phantom. Entrance skin dose was measured with a 60 cc ion chamber, and the PCXMC Monte Carlo based software was used to calculate patient effective dose. For the RA protocol, a 16 cm computed tomography (CT) dosimetry phantom and a 100 mm pencil ion chamber were employed to measure the CT dose index. Patient effective dose was calculated with the ImPACT calculator. An unpaired two-tailed t-test was used to determine the significance of differences between patient doses in each group. RESULTS: Sixteen patients underwent the 2D DSA protocol with multiple projections; their mean number of cine runs was 5.1; the mean effective dose was 2.11 millisievert (mSv) (range 1.69-3.43 mSv). Twenty eight patients were assessed using the 3D RA protocol with the effective dose of 1.29 mSv. The difference between the means of two dose distributions was statistically significant (p=0.00028). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the patient effective dose was significantly lower from the 3D RA protocol than that from the 2D DSA protocol used in the planning of coiling of intracranial aneurysm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".