MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386347594 · doi:10.1002/mp.16696

The risk index as a basis for risk/benefit analyses and protocol optimization in diagnostic nuclear imaging

2023· article· en· W4386347594 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Camilo Ocampo Ramos, Lukas M. Carter, Harry Marquis, Carlos Uribe, Pat Zanzonico, Wesley E. Bolch, Adam Kesner

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDosimetryMetric (unit)Medical imagingMedical physicsRisk assessmentEffective dose (radiation)Nuclear medicinePopulationProtocol (science)Computer scienceMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Artificial intelligenceEnvironmental healthEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Potential risk associated with low-dose radiation exposures is often expressed using the effective dose (E) quantity. Other risk-related quantities have been proposed as alternatives. The recently introduced risk index (RI) shares similarities with E but expands the metric to incorporate medical imaging-appropriate risks factors including patient-specific size, age, and sex. PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to examine the RI metric for quantifying stochastic radiation risk and demonstrate its applications in nuclear imaging. The advantages in this improved metric may help the field progress toward stratified risk consideration in the course of patient management, improve efforts for procedure optimization, and support an evolution in the science of radiation risk assessment. METHODS: In this study we describe, implement, and calculate RI for various diagnostic nuclear imaging scenarios using reference biokinetics published in ICRP Publication 128 for commonly utilized radiopharmaceuticals. All absorbed dose, E and RI calculations were performed using the freely available MIRDcalc nuclear medicine dosimetry software; the organ specific risk parameters used in the software are also benchmarked in this text. The resulting RI and E values are compared and various trends in RI values identified. RESULTS: E and RI coefficients were calculated for 3016 use cases. Notably RI values vary depending on patient characteristics. Overall, across the population, global trends in RI values can be identified. In general, RI values were 2.15 times higher for females than males, due to higher risk coefficients and activities being distributed in smaller reference masses. The pediatric patients showed higher RIs than adults, as younger patients generally receive higher absorbed doses per administered activity, and are more radiosensitive, and have a longer projected lifespan at risk. A compendium of E and RI values is also provided in table format to serve as a reference for the community. CONCLUSIONS: RI is a rational quantity that could be used for justification, risk communication and protocol optimization in medical imaging. It has some advantages when compared to the long-utilized E value with respect to personalization, since accounts for patient size, age, sex, and natural incidence of cancer risk.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207