MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413753339 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2025.1209

Portable CT for Use in the Hospital

2025· article· en· W4413753339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CDA-AMC

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What Is the Issue? Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) is examining the role of portable CT use in Canada. Conventional CT scanners are large, costly, and fixed installations that require specialized infrastructure, such as radiation shielding and high-voltage power. Patients often need to be transported from other parts of a health care facility — such as the intensive care unit (ICU) or emergency department — to centralized radiology units to access conventional CT. This process can be logistically complex, clinically risky, and resource-intensive, particularly for patients who are critically ill or immobilized. Portable CT addresses these challenges by enabling diagnostic imaging at the point of care (e.g., at the patient’s bedside or in the operating room). While further evaluation is needed, portable CT may offer a more accessible and cost-effective imaging option in certain settings and clinical scenarios. The mobility and relatively lower infrastructure requirements for CT scanners suggest potential value in rural, remote, or underserved areas where conventional CT access is limited. What Did We Do? CDA-AMC conducted a limited literature search to summarize information on the technical features, clinical uses, and operational considerations of portable CT in hospital settings. The goal was to describe CT technology and to identify the main uses of portable CT. What Did We Find? Portable CT units most commonly used in ICUs, operating rooms, and emergency departments are compact and manoeuvrable and bring imaging to the patient. While portable CT units may have lower resolution compared to conventional units, it generally provides clinically sufficient image quality for use in critical care, emergency, and intraoperative settings, for some clinical indications. Radiation exposure levels are generally safe, especially with appropriate shielding, although studies have produced variable results depending on the clinical setting, shielding methods, and scanner models used. While portable CT imaging offers advantages, several potential risks and operational considerations may need to be considered including maintenance of acceptable radiation exposure, overuse of imaging, and possible infection control risks. Portable CT reduces the burden on ICU and transport staff as they no longer have to transport patients to the imaging suite, but this may increase the workload for radiology staff, particularly medical radiation technologists who may have to spend more time bringing the imaging to the patient. Portable CT may have the most clinical utility for patients who are critically ill, immobilized, in surgery, or infectious. Pediatric patients and patients in rural or remote communities may also benefit. Portable CT units cost less than fixed systems and require minimal setup, making them well-suited for hospitals with infrastructure or budget constraints.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207