The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimation of Radiation Exposure for Brain Perfusion CT: Standard Protocol Compared With Deviations in Protocol
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the organ doses and estimate the effective dose for the standard brain perfusion CT protocol and erroneous protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anthropomorphic phantom with metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) detectors was scanned on a 64-MDCT scanner. Protocol 1 used a standard brain perfusion protocol with 80 kVp and fixed tube current of 200 mA. Protocol 2 used 120 kVp and fixed tube current of 200 mA. Protocol 3 used 120 kVp with automatic tube current modulation (noise index, 2.4; minimum, 100 mA; maximum, 520 mA). RESULTS: Compared with protocol 1, the effective dose was 2.8 times higher with protocol 2 and 7.8 times higher with protocol 3. For all protocols, the peak dose was highest in the skin, followed by the brain and calvarial marrow. Compared with protocol 1, the peak skin dose was 2.6 times higher with protocol 2 and 6.7 times higher with protocol 3. The peak skin dose for protocol 3 exceeded 3 Gy. The ocular lens received significant scatter radiation: 177 mGy for protocol 2 and 435 mGy for protocol 3, which were 4.6 and 11.3 times the dose for protocol 1, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with the standard protocol, erroneous protocols of increasing the tube potential from 80 kVp to 120 kVp will lead to a three- to fivefold increase in organ doses, and concurrent use of high peak kilovoltage with incorrectly programmed tube current modulation can increase dose to organs by 7- to 11-fold. Tube current modulation with a low noise index can lead to doses to the skin and ocular lens that are close to thresholds for tissue reactions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previous studies have only focused on controlling radiation exposure by techniques such as modifying tube voltage, tube current, and tube rotation time.
“However, previous studies have only focused on controlling radiation exposure by techniques, such as modifying the tube voltage, tube current, and tube rotation time [16,17].”
From A Novel Singular Value Decomposition-Based Denoising Method in 4-Dimensional Computed Tomography of the Brain in Stroke Patients with Statistical Evaluation (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
Chang, E. L., Wefel, J. S., Hess, K. R., Allen, P. K., Lang, F. F., Kornguth, D. G., Arbuckle, R. B., Swint, J. M., Shiu, A. S., Maor, M. H., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70263-3 · Cited by 2,479
Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values
Valentin, J. (2002) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/s0146-6453(03)00002-2 · Cited by 2,024
Shaw, E., Scott, C., Souhami, L., Dinapoli, R. P., Kline, R. W., Loeffler, J. S., & Farnan, N. (2000) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00507-6 · Cited by 1,610
Valentin, J. (2000) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/s0146-6453(01)00004-5 · Cited by 965
Centiles for adult head circumference.
Bushby, K. M. D., Cole, T. P., Matthews, J. N. S., & Goodship, J. A. (1992) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/adc.67.10.1286 · Cited by 202
Radiation Dose and Cataract Surgery Incidence in Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1986–2005
Neriishi, K., Nakashima, E., Akahoshi, M., Hida, A., Grant, E. J., Masunari, N., Funamoto, S., Minamoto, A., Fujiwara, S., & Shore, R. E. (2012) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.12111947 · Cited by 103
Yoshizumi, T. T., Goodman, P. C., Frush, D. P., et al. (2007) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.06.0742 · Cited by 85
Self-citationMeasurement of radiation dose in cerebral CT perfusion study.
Hirata, M., Sugawara, Y., Fukutomi, Y., et al. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 49
Peak Skin and Eye Lens Radiation Dose From Brain Perfusion CT Based on Monte Carlo Simulation
Zhang, D., Cagnon, C. H., Villablanca, J. P., et al. (2012) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.11.7230 · Cited by 36
Yamauchi-Kawara, C., Fujii, K., Aoyama, T., et al. (2010) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr/52267127 · Cited by 23
Manninen, A.-L., Kotiaho, A., Nikkinen, J., et al. (2014) · Radiation Protection Dosimetry · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncu283 · Cited by 7
Evaluation of skin exposure during cerebral CT perfusion studies on a phantom
Suzuki, S., Kidouchi, T., Yamamoto, A., et al. (2010) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.003 · Cited by 4
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hirata M, 2005, Radiat Med, 23, 97
- Wang C, 2012, Poster presentation at 2012 annual meeting of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Radiation dose reduction in perfusion CT imaging of the brain: A review of the literature
Othman, A. E., Afat, S., Brockmann, M. A., Nikoubashman, O., Brockmann, C., Nikolaou, K., & Wiesmann, M. (2016) · Journal of Neuroradiology · doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2015.06.003 · Cited by 50
Yang, W., Hong, J.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., Paik, S.-H., Lee, S. H., Park, J.-S., Lee, G., Kim, B. M., & Jung, Y.-J. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20113063 · Cited by 17
“However, previous studies have only focused on controlling radiation exposure by techniques, such as modifying the tube voltage, tube current, and tube rotation time [16,17].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoang, J. K., Wang, C., Frush, D. P., Enterline, D. S., Samei, E., Toncheva, G., Lowry, C., & Yoshizumi, T. T.
- Affiliations
- Duke Medical Center (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 201
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- W730-W734
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W2112260118
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Roentgenology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
- Keywords
- radiation dose assessment, effective dose, organ dose, automatic tube current modulation, noise index, tube potential, tube voltage, skin dose, scattered radiation, anthropomorphic phantom, MOSFET dosimetry, protocol deviations
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Humans, Radiation Dosage, Radiometry, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Phantoms, Imaging
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
