MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386212119 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.13066

Influence of resident involvement on fluoroscopy time and ionizing radiation exposure in fluoroscopy‐guided spinal procedures

2023· article· en· W4386212119 on OpenAlexaff
Béatrice Soucy, Dillon Lee, Amélie Moreau‐Bourbonnais, Marc Filiatrault, Isabelle Denis, Min Cheol Chang, Mathieu Boudier‐Revéret

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoroscopyMedicineLumbarConfidence intervalNuclear medicineRadiation exposureRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Fluoroscopic guidance has become the standard for a variety of medical procedures. Mastering these techniques requires practice, which may entail additional radiation for patients and providers. Despite their widespread use, the literature examining factors influencing radiation exposure in fluoroscopically guided pain procedures is scarce. Objective To evaluate the influence of resident involvement on radiation exposure during fluoroscopy‐guided spinal interventions. Design Single‐center, observational study. Setting Outpatient physiatry clinic in a teaching hospital. Patients All patients who received cervical or lumbar facet block(s) (FBs), transforaminal epidural steroid injection(s) (TFESIs) without digital subtraction, or a caudal epidural (CE) during the study period were included. Interventions Resident involvement in the procedures: absent, observing, or participating. Main Outcome Measures Machine‐indicated fluoroscopy time (seconds) and radiation dose (milligrays [mGy]). Results Two hundred ninety six procedures were included: 188 FBs (58 cervical, 130 lumbar), 48 CEs, and 60 TFESIs. For lumbar FBs, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose increased significantly when residents performed them (meantime = 24.5 s, confidence interval [CI] = 20.4–28.7; meandose = 3.53 mGy, CI = 2.57–4.49) compared to when they observed (meantime = 9.9 s, CI = 8.1–11.7; meandose = 1.28 mGy, CI = 0.98–1.59) (mean difference: time = 14.63 s, CI = 9.31–19.94; dose = 2.25 mGy, CI = 1.17–3.33) and were absent during the procedure (meantime = 12.9 s, CI = 11.1–14.6; meandose = 1.65 mGy, CI = 1.40–1.89) (mean difference: time = 11.67 s, CI = 7.35–15.98; dose = 1.88 mGy, CI = 1.01–2.76). In the case of TFESIs, time, but not dose, increased significantly when residents observed (meantime = 39.1 s, CI = 30.7–47.6; meandose = 6.73 mGy, CI = 3.39–10.07) compared to when they were absent (meantime = 27.1 s, CI = 22.4–31.8; meandose = 4.41 mGy, CI = 3.06–5.76 (mean difference: time = 11.99 s, CI = 1.37–22.61; dose = 2.32 mGy, CI = −1.20–5.84). Finally, resident involvement did not significantly affect the outcomes for CEs (ptime = .032, pdose = .74) and cervical FBs (ptime = .64, pdose = .68). Conclusion Resident participation affected lumbar FBs the most, with an increase in both fluoroscopy time and radiation dose.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207