Usporedba protokola kontrole kvalitete mamografskih uređaja u Republici Hrvatskoj s protokolima u drugim državama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this paper is the comparison of quality control protocols of mammography devices in the Republic of Croatia with protocols in other countries. Mammography is the most reliable method for early detection of breast cancer aimed at providing quality mammograms with the best possible diagnostic information with the lowest possible radiation dose to patients. It is necessary to control the quality of the device since the image quality and acceptable radiation dose depend on several parameters such as breast size and density, X-ray source characteristics (alignment of X-ray field/image receptor, tube output, reproducibility and accuracy), automatic control exposure (AEC), compression, receptor efficiency, film processing, image reading and display conditions, and repeated image analysis. The correctness of mammography devices in Croatia is controlled daily, monthly and annually by precisely prescribed protocols using appropriate phantoms. Quality control is performed by radiological technologists and medical physicists, but also by device manufacturers' service technicians and inspectors as needed. The aim of this paper is to compare protocols that control the quality of mammography devices in other countries based on the Canadian and European protocols. A literature search will establish guidelines for the implementation of quality control in mammography, which are available worldwide from health care providers, but also from scientific and professional associations. The Croatian and Canadian protocols and the protocol of the European Commission focused on conventional and digital mammography will be described. Finally, the aim is to show difference between protocols, to show the advantages and disadvantages, and to conclude which would be the most ideal in terms of comprehensiveness, practicality and cost-effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".