A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Evaluation of Size Correction Factor for Size-specific Dose Estimates (SSDE) Calculation]. | LitMetric

American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No.204 recommends the size-specific dose estimates (SSDE), wherein SSDE=computed tomography dose index-volume (CTDIvol )×size correction factor (SCF), as an index of the CT dose to consider patient thickness. However, the study on SSDE has not been made yet for area detector CT (ADCT) device such as a 320-row CT scanner. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the SCF values for ADCT by means of a simulation technique to look into the differences in SCF values due to beam width. In the simulation, to construct the geometry of the Aquilion ONE X-ray CT system (120 kV), the dose ratio and the effective energies were measured in the cone angle and fan angle directions, and these were incorporated into the simulation code, Electron Gamma Shower Ver.5 (EGS5). By changing the thickness of a PMMA phantom from 8 cm to 40 cm, CTDIvol and SCF were determined. The SCF values for the beam widths in conventional and volume scans were calculated. The differences among the SCF values of conventional, volume scans, and AAPM were up to 23.0%. However, when SCF values were normalized in a phantom of 16 cm diameter, the error tended to decrease for the cases of thin body thickness, such as those of children. It was concluded that even if beam width and device are different, the SCF values recommended by AAPM are useful in clinical situations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.6009/jjrt.2016_JSRT_72.9.727DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

scf values
24
correction factor
8
size-specific dose
8
dose estimates
8
estimates ssde
8
scf
8
differences scf
8
values beam
8
beam width
8
conventional volume
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!