CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Radiation Dose and ImagingAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Redefining Radiation Metrics: Evaluating Actual Doses in Computed Tomography Scans

Open access
Sabiniewicz-Ziajka, Dominika, Szarmach, Arkadiusz, Grzywińska, Małgorzata, Gać, Paweł, Piskunowicz, Maciej·2024·Biomedicines
DOI 10.3390/biomedicines12030600PMC PMC10967789
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Computed 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. Methods: A 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. Results: Analysis 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 (p = 0.03). The newly introduced DLPss values ranged around 343.90 ± 81.66 mGy·cm for the entire group, with statistically significant differences between women (323.53 ± 78.69 mGy·cm) and men (364.89 ± 79.87 mGy·cm) (p < 0.05), providing a comprehensive assessment of total radiation dose. Conclusion: The 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.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/biomedicines12030600

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Percentage range of change in the length of the diagnostic scan compared to the topographic scan.
Figure 1 Percentage range of change in the length of the diagnostic scan compared to the topographic scan.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Percentage distribution of patients whose effective cross-sectional diameter in chest CT examination differed from the diameter of the reference phantom.
Figure 2 Percentage distribution of patients whose effective cross-sectional diameter in chest CT examination differed from the diameter of the reference phantom.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Correlation of BMI with effective chest diameter for the entire group.
Figure 3 Correlation of BMI with effective chest diameter for the entire group.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (a) Correlation of SSDE with BMI (female group), (b) correlation of SSDE with BMI (male group).
Figure 4 (a) Correlation of SSDE with BMI (female group), (b) correlation of SSDE with BMI (male group).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Andersson, J., Pavlicek, W., Al-Senan, R., Bolch, W., Bosmans, H., Cody, D., Dixon, R., Colombo, P., Dong, F., and Edyvean, S. (2023, September 27). Estimating Patient Organ Dose with Computed Tomography: A Review of Present Methodology and Required DICOM Information a Joint Report of AAPM Task Group 246 and the European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP). AAPM Raport. Available online: https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_246.pdf.
  2. Damilakis, J., Frija, G., Jaschke, W., Paulo, G., Repussard, J., Schegerer, A., Tsapaki, V., Clark, J., and Hierath, M. (2023, September 18). European Study on Clinical Diagnostic Reference Levels for X-ray Medical Imaging—EUCLID, Publications Office of the European Union. Available online: https://www.eurosafeimaging.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210325_D5.3-EUCLID-Workshop-Report-FINAL_with-updates_for-website.pdf.
  3. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (2007). ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP, 37, 1–332. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sabiniewicz-Ziajka, D., Szarmach, A., Grzywińska, M., Gać, P., & Piskunowicz, M.
Affiliations
  • Gdańsk Medical University (PL)
  • Wroclaw Medical University (PL)
Corresponding author
Szarmach, Arkadiusz
ORCID
Venue
Biomedicines
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-03-07
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
600
ISSN
2227-9059 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/biomedicines12030600
PMC
PMC10967789
OpenAlex
W4392562802
Cited by
8
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Biomedicines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
computed tomography radiation dose, CTDIvol, effective dose, size-specific dose estimate, dose-length product, chest CT, anthropometric factors, effective diameter, sex differences in radiation dose, radiation risk, patient safety

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