Dosimetry analysis of panoramic‐imaging devices in different‐sized phantoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to measure the radiographic dose in adult, adolescent, and child head-sized PMMA phantoms for three panoramic-imaging devices: the panoramic mode on two CBCT machines (Carestream 9300 and i-CAT NG) and the Planmeca ProMax 2D. A SEDENTEXCT dose index adult phantom and custom-built adolescent and pediatric PMMA dosimetry phantoms were used. Panoramic radiographs were performed using a Planmeca ProMax 2D and the panoramic mode on a Carestream 9300 CBCT and an i-CAT NG using the protocols used clinically. Point dose measurements were performed at the center, around the periphery and on the surface of each phantom using a thimble ionization chamber. Five repeat measurements were taken at each location. For each machine, single-factor ANOVA was conducted to determine dose differences between protocols in each phantom, as well as determine the differences in absorbed dose when the same protocol was used for different-sized phantoms. For any individual phantom, using protocols with lower kVp, mA, or acquisition times resulted in statistically significant dose savings, as expected. When the same protocol was used for different-sized phantoms, the smaller phantom had a higher radiation dose due to less attenuation of x-rays by the smaller phantom and differences in the positioning of the ion chamber relative to the focal trough. The panoramic-mode on the CBCT machines produce images suitable for clinical use with similar dose levels to the stand-alone panoramic device. Significant dose savings may result by selecting age- and size- appropriate protocols for pediatric patients, but a wider range of protocols for children and adolescents may be beneficial.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".