MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416187738 · doi:10.3390/tomography11110128

Comparison of Virtual Dose Simulator and K-Factor Methods for Effective Dose Assessment in Thoracic CT

2025· article· en· W4416187738 on OpenAlexafffund
Roch Listz Maurice

Bibliographic record

VenueTomography · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSanté Montérégie
FundersMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsRadiation doseEffective dose (radiation)Computed tomographyLinear regressionCollective doseRadiation exposureCumulative doseDosimetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale and Objective: Medical imaging, particularly computed tomography (CT), is the largest man-made contributor to collective radiation exposure. This study compares methods for assessing CT radiation dose, focusing on thoracic examinations. Population investigated: We retrospectively analyzed 3956 non-contrast thoracic CT exams from 1553 females (mean age 70 ± 12 years) and 2403 males (mean age 69 ± 12 years). Methods: Data were acquired using a Siemens Somatom Force CT-Scanner (installed in 2015). Exposure parameters and patient somatic data were recorded and used as inputs for the Virtual Dose Simulator (VDS), which served as the gold standard for effective dose (EDref) measurement. Additionally, ED was calculated using two ICRP-103 K-factor methods: Shrimpton et al. (EDshr) and Romanyukha et al. (EDrom). Results: Regression analysis demonstrated strong linear relationships between EDref and both weight and BMI (R2 ≥ 0.84), with EDref values ranging from 1.55 to 4.59 mSv. Even stronger linear relationships were observed between EDref and CT scanner tube current, particularly for women (R2 = 0.93) and men (R2 = 0.90). Similar trends emerged for dose-length product (DLP), which showed high correlations for both women (R2 = 0.95) and men (R2 = 0.94). Compared to VDS, EDrom underestimated women’s doses by 10% and slightly overestimated men’s doses by 1%, while EDshr underestimated the effective dose by 18% for women and 9% for men. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that K-factor methods provide a simple, efficient, and clinically practical approach for both individual cumulative dose monitoring (critical for patients requiring repeated imaging) and population-level dose assessment (essential for epidemiological risk evaluation). The high reliability of K-factor-based estimates, as demonstrated in this work, underscores their potential for integration into clinical practice to enhance dose optimization and patient safety.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.458 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTomographySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207