MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408367502 · doi:10.1177/08465371251322733

Planetary Health and Climate Action in Radiology

2025· review· en· W4408367502 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler D. Yan, Bruce B. Forster, Alison Harris, M. J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClimate changeContext (archaeology)Greenhouse gasHealth careHuman healthEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution are disrupting earth's biophysical systems, with adverse effects on local and global human health. Planetary health describes the inextricable link between human health and the health of earth's biophysical systems. There is urgent need for a stronger focus on planetary health among healthcare systems and radiology departments. Medical imaging is a substantial contributor to climate change, responsible for 0.8% to 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As demands for medical imaging continue to grow, so will the need for radiologists to provide leadership in environmentally sustainable medical imaging. Mitigation strategies targeting overall reductions in environmental impact are pivotal including reducing the energy consumption of medical imaging equipment and establishing a circular supply chain to reduce unnecessary waste. In addition, radiology departments will need to focus on adaptative measures which build resiliency to the impacts of climate change, some of which will be unavoidable. This review aims to define planetary healthcare in the context of radiology and provide a framework within which to consider specific actions to reduce the environmental footprint of medically necessary medical imaging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207