Transatlantic Comparison of CT Radiation Doses in the Era of Radiation Dose–Tracking Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic reference levels from a local European CT dose registry, using radiation-tracking software from a large patient sample, with preexisting European and North American diagnostic reference levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ), dose-length product (DLP), size-specific dose estimate, and effective dose values for CT examinations of the head, paranasal sinuses, thorax, pulmonary angiogram, abdomen-pelvis, renal-colic, thorax-abdomen-pelvis, and thoracoabdominal angiogram were obtained using radiation-tracking software. Metrics from this registry were compared with diagnostic reference levels from Canada and California (published in 2015), the American College of Radiology (ACR) dose index registry (2015), and national diagnostic reference levels from local CT dose registries in Switzerland (2010), the United Kingdom (2011), and Portugal (2015). RESULTS: values by 55% for head, 240% for thorax, 28% for abdomen-pelvis, 42% for thorax-abdomen-pelvis, 128% for pulmonary angiogram, 138% for renal-colic, and 58% for paranasal sinus studies. CONCLUSION: Our local registry had lower diagnostic reference level values than did existing European and North American diagnostic reference levels. Automated radiation-tracking software could be used to establish and update existing diagnostic reference levels because they are capable of analyzing large datasets meaningfully.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".