↓ Skip to main content

Radiation Organ Doses Received in a Nationwide Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists: Methods and Findings

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Research, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Radiation Organ Doses Received in a Nationwide Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists: Methods and Findings
Published in
Radiation Research, October 2014
DOI 10.1667/rr13542.1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In this article, we describe recent methodological enhancements and findings from the dose reconstruction component of a study of health risks among U.S. radiologic technologists. An earlier version of the dosimetry published in 2006 used physical and statistical models, literature-reported exposure measurements for the years before 1960, and archival personnel monitoring badge data from cohort members through 1984. The data and models previously described were used to estimate annual occupational radiation doses for 90,000 radiological technologists, incorporating information about each individual's employment practices based on a baseline survey conducted in the mid-1980s. The dosimetry methods presented here, while using many of the same methods as before, now estimate 2.23 million annual badge doses (personal dose equivalent) for the years 1916-1997 for 110,374 technologists, but with numerous methodological improvements. Every technologist's annual dose is estimated as a probability density function to reflect uncertainty about the true dose. Multiple realizations of the entire cohort distribution were derived to account for shared uncertainties and possible biases in the input data and assumptions used. Major improvements in the dosimetry methods from the earlier version include: A substantial increase in the number of cohort member annual badge dose measurements; Additional information on individual apron usage obtained from surveys conducted in the mid-1990s and mid-2000s; Refined modeling to develop lognormal annual badge dose probability density functions using censored data regression models; Refinements of cohort-based annual badge probability density functions to reflect individual work patterns and practices reported on questionnaires and to more accurately assess minimum detection limits; and Extensive refinements in organ dose conversion coefficients to account for uncertainties in radiographic machine settings for the radiographic techniques employed. For organ dose estimation, we rely on well-researched assumptions about critical exposure-related variables and their changes over the decades, including the peak kilovoltage and filtration typically used in conducting radiographic examinations, and the usual body location for wearing radiation monitoring badges, the latter based on both literature and national recommendations. We have derived organ dose conversion coefficients based on air-kerma weighting of photon fluences from published X-ray spectra and derived energy-dependent transmission factors for protective lead aprons of different thicknesses. Findings are presented on estimated organ doses for 12 organs and tissues: red bone marrow, female breast, thyroid, brain, lung, heart, colon, ovary, testes, skin of trunk, skin of head and neck and arms, and lens of the eye.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Environmental Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2023.
All research outputs
#11,109,863
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Research
#971
of 3,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,371
of 303,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Research
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 303,938 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.