ArticleBiomedicines2024
Redefining Radiation Metrics: Evaluating Actual Doses in Computed Tomography Scans.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who will keep patients safe? The largest multi-centre survey of healthcare students exposes critical gaps in radiation safety education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Individualized Radiation Dose Assessment in Low-Dose Chest CT: The Role of DLPss and Topogram Optimization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Prediction of Chest CT Radiation Doses: Establishing BMI-Based Diagnostic Reference Levels and Patient-Factor Correlations for Machine-Learning Models.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Patient knowledge and acceptance of radiation safety measures correlated to actual exposure records: A survey study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2026Review
- Reducing Radiation Dose in Computed Tomography Imaging of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Using Spectral Shaping Technique with Tin Filter.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Computed Tomography Doses Calculation: Do We Really Need a New Dose Assessment Tool?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating physician concordance in interpretation of tracheobronchomalacia diagnosis and phenotyping using dynamic expiratory chest computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison CT radiation dose parameters, DLP and CTDI between two prominent tertiary care hospitals in Delhi NCR.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Optimizing Chest Computed Tomography Imaging Protocols: A Narrative Review on Dose Reduction and Diagnostic Efficacy.Journal of medical physicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) contributes significantly to the collective dose from medical sources, raising concerns about potential health risks. However, existing radiation dose estimation tools, such as volume computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol), dose-length product (DLP), effective dose (ED), and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), have limitations in accurately reflecting patient exposure. This study introduces a new parameter, size-specific dose-length product (DLPss), aiming to enhance the precision of radiation dose estimation in real-life scenarios.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 134 chest CT studies was conducted. Relationships between CTDIvol and anthropometric parameters were examined, and SSDE was calculated based on effective diameter. Additionally, the novel parameter, DLPss, was introduced, considering scan length and cross-sectional dimensions.
resultsAnalysis reveals variations in scan length, effective diameter, and CTDIvol between genders. Strong correlations were observed between CTDIvol and effective diameter, particularly in men. The average CTDIvol for the entire group was 7.83 ± 2.92 mGy, with statistically significant differences between women (7.38 ± 3.23 mGy) and men (8.30 ± 2.49 mGy). SSDE values showed significant gender differences, with men exhibiting higher values. The average SSDE values for women and men were 9.15 ± 2.5 mGy and 9.6 ± 2.09 mGy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (
conclusionThe study highlights the need for accurate radiation dose estimation, emphasizing the impact of CT examination parameters on dose variability. The proposed DLPss parameter offers a promising approach to enhancing precision in assessing radiation risk during CT scans. Further research is warranted to explore additional parameters for a comprehensive understanding of radiation exposure and to optimize imaging protocols for patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.