Predictors of CT Radiation Dose and Their Effect on Patient Care: A Comprehensive Analysis Using Automated Data
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To determine patient, vendor, and institutional factors that influence computed tomography (CT) radiation dose. Materials and Methods The relevant institutional review boards approved this HIPAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent. Volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and effective dose in 274 124 head, chest, and abdominal CT examinations performed in adult patients at 12 facilities in 2013 were collected prospectively. Patient, vendor, and institutional characteristics that could be used to predict (a) median dose by using linear regression after log transformation of doses and (b) high-dose examinations (top 25% of dose within anatomic strata) by using modified Poisson regression were assessed. Results There was wide variation in dose within and across medical centers. For chest CTDIvol, overall median dose across all institutions was 11 mGy, and institutional median dose was 7–16 mGy. Models including patient, vendor, and institutional factors were good for prediction of median doses (R2 = 0.31–0.61). The specific institution where the examination was performed (reflecting the specific protocols used) accounted for a moderate to large proportion of dose variation. For chest CTDIvol, unadjusted median CTDIvol was 16.5 mGy at one institution and 6.7 mGy at another (adjusted relative median dose, 2.6 mGy [95% confidence interval: 2.5, 2.7]). Several variables were important predictors that a patient would undergo high-dose CT. These included patient size, the specific institution where CT was performed, and the use of multiphase scanning. For example, while 49% of patients (21 411 of 43 696) who underwent multiphase abdominal CT had a high-dose examination, 8% of patients (4977 of 62 212) who underwent single-phase CT had a high-dose examination (adjusted relative risk, 6.20 [95% CI: 6.17, 6.23]). If all patients had been examined with single-phase CT, 69% (18 208 of 26 388) of high-dose examinations would have been eliminated. Patient size, institutional-specific protocols, and multiphase scanning were the most important predictors of dose (change in R2 = 8%–32%), followed by manufacturer and iterative reconstruction (change in R2, 0.2%–15.0%). Conclusion CT doses vary considerably within and across facilities. The primary factors that influenced dose variation were multiphase scanning and institutional protocol choices. It is unknown if the variation in these factors influenced diagnostic accuracy. © RSNA, 2016
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There has been a tremendous increase in ionising radiation from medical procedures today than during the early 1980s, due to higher utilization and increased CT access.
“There has been a tremendous increase in ionising radiation from medical procedures today than during the early 1980s, due to higher utilization and increased CT access [10].”
From Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
The Materials and Methods section describes CT examinations performed in 2013, and the Discussion addresses variation in dose across facilities. Neither reports a comparison with the early 1980s or attributes an increase in medical radiation exposure to greater utilization or CT access. Searches for those historical and causal claims found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMedical exposure to ionizing radiation constitutes a significant exposure to the population in comparison to all other sources.
“Medical exposure to ionizing radiation constitutes a significant exposure to the population in comparison to all the other sources.”
From Adult Computed Tomography examinations in Uganda: Towards determining the National Diagnostic Reference Levels (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
The Introduction (page unavailable) discusses variation in CT radiation doses across institutions, and the Discussion (page unavailable) addresses ways to reduce those doses. Neither compares medical radiation exposure with other sources of population exposure; searches for natural and background radiation found no such comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(1961) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.37.425.168-b · Cited by 5,868 · see citing works
Smith‐Bindman, R. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.427 · Cited by 2,467 · see citing works
Self-citationPreface, Executive Summary and Glossary
(2007) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.10.003 · Cited by 2,116 · see citing works
Smith-Bindman, R., Miglioretti, D. L., Johnson, E., Lee, C., Feigelson, H. S., Flynn, M., Greenlee, R. T., Kruger, R. L., Hornbrook, M. C., Roblin, D., et al. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.5960 · Cited by 898 · see citing works
Self-citationAmerican Association of Physicists in Medicine
(1973) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/106.3.717b · Cited by 731 · see citing works
Spiegelman, D., Hertzmark, E., & Wand, H. C. (2007) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-006-0090-y · Cited by 298 · see citing works
(2007) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2007.11.001 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Boone, J. M. (2012) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4725757 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Self-citationRadiation Doses in Consecutive CT Examinations from Five University of California Medical Centers
Smith‐Bindman, R., Moghadassi, M., Wilson, N., et al. (2015) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142728 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Self-citationLukasiewicz, A. M., Bhargavan, M., Coombs, L. P., et al. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14131601 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Tack, D., Jahnen, A., Kohler, S., et al. (2013) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2994-8 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [8]8. Cristy M . Mathematical phantoms representing children of various ages for use in estimates of internal dose . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rep. NUREG/CR-1159 (also Oak Ridge National Laboratory Rep. ORNL/NUREG/TM-367) . 1980. . [Google Scholar]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erem, G., Ameda, F., Otike, C., Olwit, W., Mubuuke, A. G., Schandorf, C., Kisolo, A., & Kawooya, M. G. (2022) · BMC Medical Imaging · doi:10.1186/s12880-022-00838-x · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“There has been a tremendous increase in ionising radiation from medical procedures today than during the early 1980s, due to higher utilization and increased CT access [10].”
Background
- Authors
- Smith-Bindman, R., Wang, Y., Yellen-Nelson, T. R., Moghadassi, M., Wilson, N., Gould, R., Seibert, A., Boone, J. M., Krishnam, M., Lamba, R., Hall, D. J., & Miglioretti, D. L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 282
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 182-193
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- PMC
- PMC5207127
- OpenAlex
- W2504353110
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 6.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Radiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA181191)
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (CD-1304-7043)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Keywords
- CT radiation dose, computed tomography, volume CT dose index, effective dose, dose prediction, patient size, iterative reconstruction, chest CT, abdominal CT, head CT, radiation dose reduction, patient safety, automated data analysis, Poisson regression, linear regression
- MeSH terms
- Abdomen, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Head, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radiation Dosage, Thorax, Tomography, X-Ray Computed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review