MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329980775 · doi:10.1097/rct.0b013e318251ec61

Organ-Based Computed Tomographic (CT) Radiation Dose Reduction to the Lenses

2012· article· en· W2329980775 on OpenAlexaff
Anja Reimann, Chris Davison, Thor Bjarnason, Thakur Yogesh, Karl Kryzmyk, John R. Mayo, Savvas Nicolaou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImage qualityNuclear medicineImage noiseDosimeterStandard deviationComputed tomographicRadiologyDosimetryComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Recently, a new specific organ dose adaption and reduction protocol, or SODAR tool (X-CARE, Siemens Healthcare), which reduces dose to the anterior aspect of the body of patients, was installed on our computed tomographic scanner. The purpose of this pilot project was to evaluate image quality and dose distribution in the acquired data with the new protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients were scanned with the new SODAR head protocol. The findings were compared with 16 matched patients who were imaged with the standard computed tomographic head trauma protocol. Image quality was assessed qualitatively using a scale of 1 to 4 (1, excellent; 2, good; 3, fair; 4, nondiagnostic). Additionally, 1-cm regions of interest were placed in the white matter of the cerebral hemispheres, the cerebellar hemispheres, and the brain stem at the level of the pons for a quantitative analysis. The standard deviation of each measurement was recorded as an indicator for image noise. Dose measurement trials were performed using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters on head phantoms and then on patients. RESULTS: Subjective image quality ranged between 1 and 3; no scan areas were considered nondiagnostic. Overall image quality of the posterior fossa averaged at 1.656 was slightly reduced compared to the cerebral hemispheres (mean, 1.141). The mean standard protocol brain stem image quality was 1.604, with only minimal deterioration to 1.708 in the SODAR group.No significant difference in image noise could be found between the SODAR group with a mean noise of 4.515 and standard images with a mean of 4.721 (P > 0.05).The dose to the anterior aspect of the patient was lowered to 3.2 mGy compared to 4.5 mGy on the lateral aspect of the scan (P > 0.05). To compensate for the photon loss in the posterior aspect, the dose has to be slightly increased to a mean of 6 mGy, but overall, a significant dose reduction with stable image quality could be achieved by reducing the dose length product from 1489 to 1347 mGy·cm using SODAR (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Using the SODAR protocol resulted not only in an impressive 46% to 59% frontal dose reduction but also in the overall dose reduction. This dose reduction was obtained without sacrificing image quality, providing diagnostic images of the brain while protecting radiosensitive structures like the eye lenses in trauma brain imaging. Future applications will be reducing dose to other radiosensitive structures such as the thyroid gland and breast tissue from potentially harmful low-energy radiation without compromising image quality.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted TomographySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207