Comparison of DLP and CTDI in somatom Definition Flash and GE revolution computed tomography scanners at AIIMS, India.

Lalit Gupta, Ashok Sharma, Ashish Kumar Shukla, Sumit Tyagi

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lalit GuptaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging Technology, Santosh Deemed to be University Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Ashok SharmaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging Technology, Santosh Deemed to be University Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Ashish Kumar ShuklaDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging Technology, Santosh Deemed to be University Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Sumit TyagiDepartment of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging Technology, Santosh Deemed to be University Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT) scans raises concerns about patient safety, necessitating the comparison of radiation dose parameters across different CT scanners. This study compares the Dose Length Product (DLP) and Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) values between the Somatom Definition Flash and GE Revolution CT scanners at AIIMS, New Delhi. Our findings reveal that the Somatom scanner consistently operates within international Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs), while the GE scanner shows significantly higher radiation doses, particularly for chest and abdomen scans. This research advances the understanding of CT dose optimization and highlights the need for scanner-specific protocols to ensure radiation safety.

Indexed as

Computed tomographydiagnostic reference levelsdose length productradiation dosetomography dose Index

Identifiers

PMID42145385

DOI10.6026/973206300221712

PMCPMC13177114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.