Radiation Exposure from Diagnostic Imaging in a Cohort of Pediatric Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recipients of solid organ transplants (SOT) have extensive diagnostic imaging (DI). The purpose of this study was to quantify this exposure. Children from northern Alberta with SOTs at Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta January 1, 2006, to July 31, 2012, were included. Effective doses of radiation were estimated using published norms for DI performed post-transplant up to October 16, 2014. The 54 eligible children had 6215 DI studies (5628 plain films, 293 computerized tomography (CT) scans, 149 positron emission topography (PET) -CT scans, 47 nuclear medicine scans and 98 cardiac catheterizations). Children less than 5 years of age underwent more DI studies than did older children (median (IQR) 140 (66-210) vs 49 (19-105), p = 0.010). Children with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (N = 8) had more CT scans (median (IQR) 13 (5.5-36) vs 1 (0-5), p<0.001) and PET-CT scans (median (IQR) 3.5 (1.5-8) vs 0 (0-0), p<0.001) than did other children. The estimated cumulative effective dose attributed to DI studies post-transplant was median (range) 78 (4.1-400) millisievert (mSv), and 19 of 54 children (35%; 95% confidence interval 24-49%) had a dose >100 mSv. In conclusion, a significant proportion of pediatric transplant recipients have sufficient radiation exposure post-transplant for DI to be at potential risk for radiation-induced malignancies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".