ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiation dose

1 eductions in administered activity (and thus radiation dose).

2 , contrast volume, number of angiograms, and radiation dose).

3 ated activity values that relate to absorbed radiation dose.

4 a single acquisition without an increase in radiation dose.

5 rally rearranged chromosomes is dependent on radiation dose.

6 ted with a significant increase in physician radiation dose.

7 nts were performed to estimate the effective radiation dose.

8 ry artery stenosis with a solid reduction of radiation dose.

9 ation of contrast medium increases the total radiation dose.

10 tors that influence computed tomography (CT) radiation dose.

11 ams in DBT screening in an attempt to reduce radiation dose.

12 was associated with reduction in therapeutic radiation dose.

13 rmance in functional oxides as a function of radiation dose.

14 particles are needed to deliver a particular radiation dose.

15 in disadvantage of CT is a considerably high radiation dose.

16 atio, long imaging times, and concerns about radiation dose.

17 a but have limited accuracy and deliver high radiation dose.

18 that attained with PET/CT, at about half the radiation dose.

19 pelvic area of patients to minimize operator radiation dose.

20 dysfunction results from a range of ionizing radiation doses.

21 y control programs will reduce the necessary radiation doses.

22 h or without cetuximab, and 60- versus 74-Gy radiation doses.

23 variable between patients, even for similar radiation doses.

24 ed for different wavelength irradiations and radiation doses.

25 se (ULD) CT examinations were performed with radiation doses 1.4 and 2.6 times lower, respectively, t

26 <0.001) and a 7.0-fold increase in physician radiation dose (1.4 [0.2-7.1] versus 0.2 [0.0-2.9] muSv;

27 accuracy) and allows for imaging at reduced radiation dose (16% +/- 13), while maintaining low-contr

28 With a low kidney and bone marrow radiation dose, (177)Lu-PP-F11N shows a promising biodis

29 rs; 65% male; 40% squamous histology; median radiation dose, 63.0 Gy), and 3728 patients from 48 stud

30 rs; 65% male; 40% squamous histology; median radiation dose, 64.6 Gy).

31 6 vs. 29.8 +/- 13.4 min; p < 0.01) and total radiation dose (866.0 +/- 1003.3 vs. 1731.2 +/- 1978.4 c

32 that the DNA exonuclease Trex1 is induced by radiation doses above 12-18 Gy in different cancer cells

33 The administered radioactivity and effective radiation doses absorbed were similar between the study

34 e 2011-2012, but remains low; variability of radiation dose according to facility continues to be wid

35 ATVS significantly reduces radiation dose across most, but not all, body regions an

36 ast volume was 250 (IQR: 180 to 340) ml, and radiation doses (air kerma and dose area product) were 1

37 fe, cumulative diagnostic costs, and applied radiation dose (all P interactions>/=0.097).

38 have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multi

39 This technique administers a very high radiation dose and effectively causes the ablation of tu

40 Trex1 induction may guide the selection of radiation dose and fractionation in patients treated wit

41 Purpose To determine the effect of radiation dose and iterative reconstruction (IR) on nois

42 a novel technique in enhancement of ionising radiation dose and its effect on biological systems.

43 hemia that correlated with visual acuity and radiation dose and may predict future development of rad

44 While radiation dose and nuclear score were positively associa

45 east cancer detection rates and estimates of radiation dose and radiation risk and is, therefore, exe

46 Purpose To investigate the effect of CT radiation dose and reconstruction settings on the reprod

47 events have become much less common with new radiation dose and targeting strategies.

48 However, normal tissue toxicity limits the radiation dose and the curative potential of radiation t

49 ngiography measurements correlated with both radiation dose and visual acuity.

50 scribed dose model with abdominal and pelvic radiation doses and an ovarian dose model with ovarian r

51 drawn on normal tissues and tumor to assess radiation dose, and a whole-body tumor dose was defined.

52 hose of conventional CT for needle location, radiation dose, and metal artifacts using Deming regress

53 color of the mortadellas, regardless of the radiation dose applied.

54 on SAFIRE increases detectability at a given radiation dose (approximately 2% increase in detection a

55 ange of applications where exposure time and radiation dose are critical.

56 ugates are formed in vivo and, consequently, radiation doses are deposited mainly locally.

57 The study used a 2 x 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, w

58 Index Registry for CT enables evaluation of radiation dose as a function of patient characteristics

59 tients with HPV-associated OPSCC for reduced radiation dose as a means of sparing late sequelae.

60 Purpose To estimate the radiation dose as a result of contrast medium administra

61 atomy and raw imaging information to predict radiation dose, as a means to increase treatment plannin

62 Because of these uncertainties in radiation dose assessment automated individual dose and

63 ardt-based algorithm using dose factors from RAdiation Dose Assessment Resource [RADAR] website) and

64 Radiation doses associated with CT are higher in compari

65 We measured operator radiation dose at 4 sites: left eye, chest, left ring fi

66 Radiation dose at wrist or head did not differ between r

67 tricularly in assessing the distribution and radiation doses before (131)I-omburtamab therapy in pati

68 ove an increased cancer risk associated with radiation doses below ~100 mSv is lacking; however, conc

69 significance of differences in the absorbed radiation doses between the techniques.

70 In univariate analysis, age >60 years, radiation dose, bilateral ocular involvement at presenta

71 blending in bone SPECT/CT can reduce the CT radiation dose by 60%, with no sacrifice in attenuation-

72 After normalization of operator radiation dose by fluoroscopy time or DAP, the differenc

73 Radiation dose changes were associated with reduced risk

74 Purpose To compare the performance of lower-radiation-dose chest CT with that of routine dose in the

75 he assessment of MM features at a much lower radiation dose compared to standard CT protocols.

76 adjunctive shields was associated with lower radiation dose compared with no shield at pelvic region

77 All but one patient had measurable cochlear radiation dose (CRD) greater than 0 Gy.

78 difference between the proportion of reduced-radiation dose CT examinations (defined as those with a

79 Conclusion Use of reduced-radiation dose CT for evaluation of kidney stones has in

80 Mean radiation dose delivered to the heart (mean heart dose)

81 35%, 54%, 27%, 18%, 17%, and 24% increase in radiation dose delivered to the heart, spleen, liver, ki

82 ive IL-18 in irradiated mice, resulting in a radiation dose-dependent free IL-18 increase in these mi

83 -1 expression and (18)F-olaparib uptake in a radiation-dose-dependent fashion.

84 n cancer radiotherapy to locally enhance the radiation dose deposition in tumors.

85 can phases, tube current and potential), and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose index and dose lengt

86 owever, the complication rates and effective radiation doses did not differ between both techniques.

87 We thus managed to map a desired radiation dose distribution from a patient's PTV and OAR

88 To determine the radiation dose distribution in nonvascularized microtumo

89 The objective was to compare the regional radiation dose distribution in patients that developed x

90 Comparisons of radiation dose distributions between photon and proton t

91 0 minutes [60-121 minutes]; P=0.07), similar radiation dose (dose area product 89 Grayxcm(2) [52-163

92 sociated with a 2.1-fold increase in patient radiation dose (dose area product, 91.8 [59.6-149.2] ver

93 ined independently associated with physician radiation dose (dose increase, 5.2% per unit increase in

94 distance between needle tip and target), and radiation dose (dose-area product [DAP]) were recorded f

95 ughout the body, the internal organ-specific radiation dose due to inhaled radioactive aerosols has l

96 ndomized controlled study comparing operator radiation dose during cardiac catheterization and percut

97 patient body mass index (BMI) and physician radiation dose during coronary angiography.

98 ose To compare the navigational accuracy and radiation dose during needle localization of targets for

99 ic MXPD significantly reduces first operator radiation dose during routine cardiac catheterization an

100 om large unselected populations on patients' radiation doses during coronary angiography (CA) and PCI

101 ects on physicians, in the form of increased radiation doses during coronary angiography.

102 rok and colleagues found that a single 15 Gy radiation dose eliminated lung tumor growth in mice when

103 uggest that gold nanoparticle (GNP)-mediated radiation dose enhancement and radiosensitization can be

104 SiGdNP) provide simultaneous MR contrast and radiation dose enhancement.

105 Radiation dose-escalation and consolidation chemotherapy

106 This is similar to the radiation dose estimates for (18)F-FDG PET.

107 Human radiation dose estimates indicated the bladder wall as t

108 Human radiation dose estimates indicated urinary bladder wall

109 course of tracer distribution and facilitate radiation dose estimates.

110 Radiation dose estimations are key for optimizing therap

111 in locally advanced NSCLC patients, cardiac radiation dose exposure is a modifiable cardiac risk fac

112 Image pixel-wise radiation dose exposure versus change in observable CT H

113 Cumulative chemotherapy and radiation dose exposures and major medical events during

114 The effective whole-body radiation dose for (124)I-omburtamab was 0.49 +/- 0.27 m

115 dication, and to establish a current average radiation dose for CT evaluation for kidney stones by qu

116 Plausible upper-bound, lifetime radiation dose for each boar was estimated from radioact

117 cipants who underwent imaging, the increased radiation dose for the attenuation of the isolation cham

118 The absorbed radiation dose for the whole body was calculated by ente

119 imetric methods and calculate tumor-absorbed radiation doses for patients treated with (177)Lu-liloto

120 rapy, we decided to delineate the effects of radiation dose fractionation on the KLF2 signaling casca

121 These data clearly indicate that radiation dose fractionation plays a critical role in mo

122 The estimated radiation dose from (11)C-nicotine administration is rel

123 Conclusion: The estimated radiation dose from (11)C-nicotine administration is rel

124 veillance protocol, the cumulative effective radiation dose from age 40 to 65 years was 682 mSv (tumo

125 tribution of (11)C-nicotine and the absorbed radiation dose from whole-body (11)C-nicotine PET imagin

126 020 regarding CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses from 62 health care sites in 34 countrie

127 imetric calculations show that the effective radiation doses from the novel tracer (68)Ga-NODAGA-exen

128 Calculating radiation doses from this tracer is important to assess

129 adratic model to derive the genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD).

130 re than 90% of the OTA was degraded by gamma-radiation doses >/=2.5kGy, and a 2-fold reduction in OTA

131 Among the 23 imaging features assessed, radiation dose had a significant effect on five, three,

132 However, a complete radiation dose had a significantly lower risk of long-te

133 patients receiving a complete vs incomplete radiation dose had a similar resection margin positivity

134 l schedule, and a corresponding reduction in radiation dose (if involved) and cost during the 5-year

135 des a major step towards direct quantitative radiation dose imaging in humans by utilizing non-contac

136 ut levels (a delivery of 20-40 J/cm(2) light radiation dose in 1-2 hours).

137 Results Pediatric radiation dose in academic pediatric facilities was sign

138 The role of the radiation dose in cataract risk was investigated using t

139 that may result in a lower and less variable radiation dose in children.

140 Physician radiation dose in each case was recorded by a dosimeter

141 present study was to estimate the (11)C-GMOM radiation dose in healthy humans.

142 cations for defining a biomarker to optimize radiation dose in patients to improve outcomes.

143 gan-specific metastatic lesion detection and radiation dose in patients with breast cancer.

144 ective Shield Under Table to Reduce Operator Radiation Dose in Percutaneous Coronary Procedures) is a

145 ased system designed to reconstruct absorbed radiation dose in peripheral blood samples collected fro

146 hen operators' blood was exposed to the same radiation dose in vitro (P<0.0001).

147 The aim of this study was to evaluate radiation doses in adult patient who underwent routine C

148 Conclusion CT use, scan protocols, and radiation doses in patients with coronavirus disease 201

149 variations in CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

150 High-energy heavy ions can deliver high radiation doses in small targets with reduced damage to

151 The mean absorbed radiation doses in source organs ranged from 7.7 muGy.MB

152 calizer radiography projections to the total radiation dose, including both the dose from localizer r

153 of these procedures and the population-based radiation dose increased remarkably from 1980 to 2006.

154 Higher radiation doses increased the redox potential, promoted

155 evere for patients receiving higher absorbed radiation doses, indicating that adverse events possibly

156 he blood serum of wild-type mice after 15 Gy radiation dose, inducing a gastrointestinal syndrome.

157 is analysis was to ascertain whether cardiac radiation dose is a predictor of major adverse cardiac e

158 iation therapy (SBRT), in which a high daily radiation dose is delivered in 1 to 5 fractions, has imp

159 iage (presence of ICH), especially where low radiation dose is desired.

160 Radiation dose is greater than for other congenital inte

161 Therefore, the total radiation dose is lower than for other PSMA PET agents a

162 While radiation dose, kernel setting, and denoising level did

163 CT projection data from 21 patients into six radiation dose levels (12.5%, 25%, 37.5%, 50%, 75%, and

164 Background There is a wide variation in radiation dose levels that can be used with chest CT in

165 mage noise typically associated with reduced radiation dose levels, thereby maintaining subjective im

166 significantly fewer patients treated with a radiation dose </= 54 Gy had difficulty swallowing solid

167 ularization procedures, cumulative effective radiation dose, major adverse cardiac events, defined as

168 Mean cardiac radiation dose (MCRD) in each patient was calculated fro

169 associated with a 50% reduction in operator radiation dose (median dose 30.5 [interquartile range, 2

170 Sv) and relative dose of the first operator (radiation dose normalized for dose area product) at the

171 Finally, the effective radiation dose of (18)F-PF-06684511 was estimated on the

172 The absorbed radiation dose of (225)Ac-L1 was determined using the bi

173 The effective radiation dose of (68)Ga-DOTA-Siglec-9 was within the sa

174 Treatment with nanoparticles and a single radiation dose of 10 Gy significantly reduces the growth

175 Radiation dose of 24 Gy conveyed a 5-fold greater risk (

176 , preoperative RT, non-external-beam RT, and radiation dose of 30 Gy or lower or 70 Gy or higher.

177 Achieving a target radiation dose of 45.0 to 50.4 Gy is associated with a s

178 lographic phase transformation upon a 10 dpa radiation dose of Au(4+) ions.

179 Results Radiation dose of image acquisition did not significantl

180 The mean radiation dose of low-dose CT was significantly lower co

181 The median radiation dose of the 425 patients identified in the 12

182 The absorbed radiation dose of the corresponding (212)Pb-labeled anal

183 Eighteen Fischer 344 rats received radiation doses of 0, 10, or 20 Gy to the abdominal wall

184 gamma-radiation was found more difficult, as radiation doses of 30kGy eliminate at most 24% of the OT

185 Exposure to radiation doses of at least 10 Gy to the eyes increased

186 9 was within the same range as the effective radiation doses of other (68)Ga-labeled tracers.

187 Purpose To investigate the impact of radiation dose on breast density estimation in digital m

188 male mice received a single 4 Gy whole-brain radiation dose on postnatal day (PND) 21 and were random

189 The influence of image acquisition radiation dose on quantitative breast density estimation

190 ach institution demonstrated improvements in radiation dose over time.

191 loride), which delivered very high and fatal radiation doses over a period of a few days.

192 ted 2016 total collective effective dose and radiation dose per capita dose are lower than in 2006.

193 d, mathematical models predict that the high radiation dose per fraction used in SBRT increases direc

194 Total needle redirections, radiation dose, procedure time, and puncture rates of no

195 valuate the kinetics of CTT1057 and estimate radiation dose profiles.

196 trast, low signal-to-noise using current low radiation-dose protocols, and a high incidence of artifa

197 Plausible upper-bound, lifetime radiation dose ranged from 1 to 1,600 mGy in exposed ani

198 tection and characterization between reduced radiation dose (RD) and standard dose (SD) contrast mate

199 The median radiation dose received among those who did not achieve

200 aneous coronary procedures, but the operator radiation dose received at pelvic region still remains h

201 ast few years, with a growing concern on the radiation dose received by the patients.

202 erate quantitative, rather than categorical, radiation dose reconstructions based on a blood sample.

203 INTERPRETATION: Chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses reduced by 15-20% was associated with hi

204 Here, we report that a 0.1 Gy radiation dose reduces cancer progression by deactivatin

205 linical trials aimed at estimating potential radiation dose reduction by using iterative reconstructi

206 tly facilitated the contemporary practice of radiation dose reduction during abdominal CT examination

207 How the DLR affects image quality and radiation dose reduction has yet to be fully investigate

208 A radiation dose reduction is possible for patients respon

209 The potential benefits of PET(DL) include a radiation dose reduction on follow-up scans and artifact

210 P = .03), which translated into an estimated radiation dose reduction potential (+/-95% confidence in

211 y between FBP and SAFIRE and to estimate the radiation dose reduction potential of SAFIRE.

212 Radiation dose reduction resulted in significantly impro

213 liver metastases is compromised with modest radiation dose reduction, and the use of iterative recon

214 in dedicated breast computed tomography for radiation dose reduction, we propose a framework that co

215 Low-dose CT enabled significant radiation dose reduction.

216 Substantial radiation dose reductions can be achieved using targeted

217 gradation of low-contrast detectability when radiation dose reductions exceed approximately 25%.

218 e new technique remained diagnostic, patient radiation doses remained similar, and technologist dose

219 surgery in unresectable disease is that the radiation dose required to ablate pancreatic cancer exce

220 increased risks of heart failure (HF), but a radiation dose-response relationship has not previously

221 The linear radiation dose-response relationship identified can be u

222 nt improvements in procedural efficiency and radiation dose savings for targeting out-of-plane lesion

223 l comparisons), no significant effect of the radiation dose setting was observed for all but one of t

224 Radiation dose settings and reconstruction algorithms af

225 CT-related radiation doses should be monitored and controlled in or

226 s in an in vivo porcine model and to compare radiation dose, spatial accuracy, and metal artifact for

227 ch cured at least 75% of mice at the highest radiation dose tested (1200 microCi), whereas at 600- an

228 hese materials to shielding and the required radiation doses that may exceed regulatory limits preven

229 ith short (1 second) exposures and tolerable radiation doses that will permit future in vivo applicat

230 not substantially affected by variations in radiation dose; thus, the use of low-dose techniques for

231 ires a large set of projection data and high radiation dose to achieve superior image quality.

232 roscopically guided and thus associated with radiation dose to both the patient and the staff members

233 so potentiates the safe delivery of a higher radiation dose to GLP-1R-positive tumors for therapy.

234 has similar clearance kinetics and a similar radiation dose to healthy organs but superior tumor upta

235 target specificity while reducing off-target radiation dose to healthy tissue during payload delivery

236 panded treatment margins, thereby increasing radiation dose to healthy tissue.

237 dures is associated with a significant lower radiation dose to operators at pelvic and thorax level.

238 The radiation dose to staff was low; surgeons received a mea

239 tion of an osmotic agent serves to lower the radiation dose to the bone marrow.

240 Despite the ability to deliver a focused radiation dose to the cell nuclei, (125)I-KX1 remained l

241 Despite the ability to deliver focused radiation dose to the cell nuclei, (125)I-KX1 remained l

242 Adapting RT-escalated radiation dose to the FDG-avid tumor detected by midtrea

243 , 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.34; P = <.001), total radiation dose to the fovea (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04

244 disease (CHD) and to quantify the effects of radiation dose to the heart, chemotherapy, and other car

245 of cardiac events and their relationship to radiation dose to the heart.

246 The calculated absorbed radiation dose to the kidney per cycle was 5.3 +/- 2.1 G

247 Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hipp

248 f (89)Zr-mAb production while minimizing the radiation dose to the operator.

249 The objective of this study is to assess the radiation dose to the patient through a retrospective au

250 This approach leads to a reduction in radiation dose to the patient while combining the PET an

251 ovides an opportunity for a reduction in the radiation dose to these patients while maintaining an ap

252 e, 847-2,185 MBq), achieving a mean absorbed radiation dose to tumor of 35.5 +/- 9.4 Gy and mean norm

253 adult male and female models and to estimate radiation doses to children.

254 of animal data may moderately underestimate radiation doses to organs in humans.

255 ocytopenia had received significantly higher radiation doses to RM than patients with grade 1/2 throm

256 -intent radiotherapy, optimise and customise radiation doses to specific tumours, and hopefully creat

257 Radiation doses to staff were measured.

258 Absorbed radiation doses to the salivary and lacrimal glands and

259 ing cellular death requires the knowledge of radiation dose tolerance at very small tissue volume.

260 ld ionization energy (TIE) and the threshold radiation dose (TRD) were determined using a high-power

261 d OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volu

262 tware, version 1.1, was applied to calculate radiation doses using the reference adult male and femal

263 /EXM software was applied to calculate human radiation doses using the reference adult model.

264 tcomes were the difference in first operator radiation dose (uSv) and relative dose of the first oper

265 moderate-dose chest radiation (10 to 19 Gy), radiation dose-volume, anthracyclines and alkylating age

266 The mean effective radiation dose was 0.56 mSv +/- 0.25 (standard deviation

267 Median radiation dose was 198 muGy.m(2)/kg (IQR: 94 to 350 muGy

268 Higher radiation dose was associated with older age, greater RV

269 Patient radiation dose was estimated using dose area product.

270 The highest radiation dose was received by the liver (0.5 mGy/MBq),

271 Radiation dose was reported as dose area product adjuste

272 Radiation dose was the single most important prognostic

273 he critical organ, with the highest absorbed radiation dose, was the urinary bladder wall at 7.96E-02

274 he critical organ, with the highest absorbed radiation doses, was the urinary bladder wall, at 0.047

275 increases in dose area product and physician radiation dose were observed across increasing patient B

276 The absorbed radiation doses were calculated on the basis of murine b

277 Additionally, the effective radiation doses were calculated to be 2.64 and 26.4 mSv

278 Radiation doses were calculated using the OLINDA/EXM sof

279 Radiation doses were calculated with OLINDA/EXM software

280 Absorbed radiation doses were calculated.

281 Cumulative radiation doses were compared between the PNET surveilla

282 Images and radiation doses were compared to 36 patients (group 2) a

283 Organ and lifetime radiation doses were estimated by two radiologists and f

284 Radiation doses were estimated.

285 As a final step, human radiation doses were extrapolated from rat PET data.

286 The median radiation doses were not significantly different between

287 Radiation doses were transferred automatically to the ra

288 removal during spinal DSA in adults reduces radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic image qualit

289 dramatic reductions in both imaging time and radiation dose while maintaining high diagnostic accurac

290 Conclusion Use of an AR C-arm system reduces radiation dose while maintaining navigational accuracy c

291 ues, have allowed for a reduction of applied radiation doses while maintaining image quality.

292 However, radiation dose, while relevant to be included in estimat

293 The urinary bladder received the highest radiation dose with a mean absorbed dose of 0.186 +/- 0.

294 A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remai

295 per particle, they can deliver a particular radiation dose with fewer particles, likely reducing emb

296 n Academic pediatric facilities use lower CT radiation dose with less variation than do nonacademic p

297 emporal resolution and reduction in ionizing radiation dose with new generation scanners.

298 ery (SSRS), allowing delivery of tumoricidal radiation doses with sparing of nearby organs at risk.

299 Therefore, optimization of radiation doses with the use of specified imaging protoc

300 nce) and administered activity (lowering the radiation dose) with uncompromised diagnostic outcome.