MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canada Safe Imaging : a Unified Effort For Patient Radiation Safety

2017· other· en· W6908499550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Due diligenceAtomic energyGovernment (linguistics)Radiation protectionPatient safety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although medical radiation has provided substantial benefits to patients, its use in medicine is significantly increasing, urging greater awareness and stricter safety measures. In 2012 the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization launched an initiative titled the u201cBonn Call For Action,u201d (BCA) which outlines ten major strategies for promoting radiation protection. While rules, guidelines, and regulations are laid out, ensuring they are adhered too is essential in creating a radiation-safe experience for each individual.tIn the last 6 years, the extent to which the BCA priorities have been, or may be, implemented has not been widely studied. This study analyzed 19 National Organizations and 41 Provincial organizations that were affiliated with radiation use in medicine, in order to observe diligence in implementing BCA recommendations to evaluate how proficient Canada is - on both a national and provincial level - in strengthening patient radiation safety. All national and provincial organizations involved with medical imaging were identified using an environmental scan and their goals, values, missions, and resources were assessedtOf the 19 National Organizations and 41 Provincial Organizations that were identified, it was evident that no organization was meeting all of the 10 BCA recommendations. Only 10% of National Organizations follow more than 5 of the 10 BCA recommendations while less than 50% of Provincial Organizations were implementing the actions at all.tThere is a need for a cohesive, national initiative to ensure that patients across Canada are safe when exposed to radiation in medicine. As a result, Canada Safe Imaging has been formed as a national organization that brings together many stakeholders to strengthen, and provide contextualized guidelines and tools, for medical radiation protection. Although results have not been replicated outside the original setting, and the initiative's relatively recent implementation makes it difficult to examine improvements at this time, it is imperative that there is a governing body that focuses on establishing safe imaging practices across all organizations. Future studies aim to evaluate the organizations' improvements in knowledge translation and adoption of and sustained adherence to good radiation safety practice and standards across Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0180.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0110.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207