Ethical aspects in the use of radiation in medicine: public consultation of the report from ICRP Task Group 109
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ICRP Publication 138 defines the ethical foundations of the System of radiological protection, based on four core values (beneficence/non-maleficence, dignity, justice and prudence) and three procedural values (accountability, transparency and inclusiveness). The mission of Task Group 109 mission was to propose a practical application in the medical field. As this field was already infused with a strong culture of biomedical ethics, the first action was to identify the values and define a common language. The core values are very similar, with the autonomy of biomedical ethics, which can be seen as a corollary of dignity, and the precautionary principle, which can be understood as the implementation of prudence. In recent years, medicine has been experiencing an emphasis on the values of solidarity, honesty, and empathy. We therefore proposed a grouping of these values in order to allow a structured review of practical situations from an ethical perspective. For the sake of concreteness, the report proposes 21 realistic scenarios (11 in imaging and 10 in therapy), which are all presented and analysed in a one-page format. Sensitising questions are provided to stimulate reflection. We hope that this report will allow all professionals in the medical and radiological protection fields to discuss situations and dilemma on a common ground. To achieve this, we also propose a strategy for the implementation of education and training, based on the Bloom taxonomy. In order to assist the reader in a theoretically complex subject, key messages are distributed throughout the text, as fixed points that can easily be understood. The report will soon be made available for public consultation and we look forward to any suggestions for improvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.144 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".