MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324361467 · doi:10.1016/j.jrras.2023.100564

Assessment of radiation exposure in a nuclear medicine department of an oncology hospital

2023· article· en· W4324361467 on OpenAlexaff
Pham Nhu Tuyen, Dương Thanh Tài, Ha Quoc Long, Abdelmoneim Sulieman, Hiba Omer, Nissren Tamam, Abdullah Almujally, James C. L. Chow, Ting‐Yim Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimeterEquivalent doseMedicineIonizing radiationEffective dose (radiation)Occupational exposureNuclear medicineEye lensLead apronRadiation protectionDosimetryMedical physicsRadiation exposureEmergency medicineIrradiationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical personnel in nuclear medicine departments are exposed to ionizing radiation which is associated with cancer induction and mortality risks. Examples of such personnel are those working in the hot-areas where radioisotopes for nuclear medicine examinations are prepared. This work aims to estimate the occupational radiation exposure for workers at the Nuclear Medicine department in Da Nang Oncology Hospital, Vietnam. The study was conducted from 2020 to 2021. The personal dose equivalents (H p ) were quantified for soft tissues for deep dose (H p (10)), eye lens dose (H p (3)), skin dose (and H p (0.07)) were quantified utilizing optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) crystals. In this study, the dose equivalent at the hot area is measured by 9 OSLD, while that for staff was measured using 16 OSLD. In 2020, the annual average H p (10) was (0.38 mSv ± 1.39); in 2021 Hp(10) was (0.25 mSv ± 1.27). The average H p (10) was well below the annual occupational dose limits (20 mSv.year −1 ). Regarding the annual dose, all recorded values were quite low compared to the annual radiation dose limits for radiation staff (20 mSv annual ∼ 1.67 mSv.month −1 ). Nevertheless, some points of measurement revealed a high-value dose of 5.69 mSv ± 2.83. This suggests that rigorous evaluation of the workplace is essential to ensuring workers' exposure is kept within safe levels. It is concluded that the Hp(10) and Hp(0.07) for the working environment and radiation workers were below the dose limits from ICRP. In addition, it is recommended that continuous monitoring of the occupational dose in nuclear medicine department is essential to reduce the dosimetric hazards of personnel working in the department.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiation Research and Applied SciencesSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207