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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
Purpose: Accurate body weight measurement is essential to promote computed tomography (CT) dose optimization; however, body weight cannot always be measured prior to CT examination, especially in the emergency setting. The aim of this study was to investigate whether deep learning-based body weight from chest CT scout images can be an alternative to actual body weight in CT radiation dose management.
Methods: Chest CT scout images and diagnostic images acquired for medical checkups were collected from 3601 patients. A deep learning model was developed to predict body weight from scout images. The correlation between actual and predicted body weight was analyzed. To validate the use of predicted body weight in radiation dose management, the volume CT dose index (CTDI ) and the dose-length product (DLP) were compared between the body weight subgroups based on actual and predicted body weight. Surrogate size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) acquired from actual and predicted body weight were compared to the reference standard.
Results: The median actual and predicted body weight were 64.1 (interquartile range: 56.5-72.4) and 64.0 (56.3-72.2) kg, respectively. There was a strong correlation between actual and predicted body weight (ρ = 0.892, p < 0.001). The CTDI and DLP of the body weight subgroups were similar based on actual and predicted body weight (p < 0.001). Both surrogate SSDEs based on actual and predicted body weight were not significantly different from the reference standard (p = 0.447 and 0.410, respectively).
Conclusion: Predicted body weight can be an alternative to actual body weight in managing dose metrics and simplifying SSDE calculation. Our proposed method can be useful for CT radiation dose management in adult patients with unknown body weight.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10402676 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14080 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!