Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose
Do you wish to request the book?
Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose
2024
Overview
An updated extension of effective dose was recently introduced, namely relative effective dose (
E
r
), incorporating age and sex factors. In this study we extended
E
r
application to a population of about 9000 patients who underwent multiple CT imaging exams, and we compared it with other commonly used radiation protection metrics in terms of their correlation with radiation risk. Using Monte Carlo methods,
E
r
, dose-length-product based effective dose (
E
DLP
), organ-dose based effective dose (
E
OD
), and organ-dose based risk index (
RI
) were calculated for each patient. Each metric’s dependency to
RI
was assessed in terms of its sensitivity and specificity.
E
r
showed the best sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with
RI
(R
2
= 0.97); while
E
DLP
yielded the lowest specificity and, along with
E
OD
, the lowest sensitivity. Compared to other metrics,
E
r
provided a closer representation of patient and group risk also incorporating age and sex factors within the established framework of effective dose.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group UK,Nature Publishing Group,Nature Portfolio
