Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
394
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
394 results for “Radiology”
ROCOv2: Radiology Objects in COntext Version 2, An Updated Multimodal Image Dataset
<p>Recent advances in deep learning techniques have enabled the development of systems for automatic analysis of medical images. These systems often require large amounts of training data with high quality labels, which is difficult and time consuming to generate.</p> <p>Here, we introduce Radiology Object in COntext Version 2 (ROCOv2), a multimodal dataset consisting of radiological images and associated medical concepts and captions extracted from the PubMed Open Access subset. Concepts for clinical modality, anatomy (X-ray), and directionality (X-ray) were manually curated and additionally evaluated by a radiologist. Unlike MIMIC-CXR, ROCOv2 includes seven different clinical modalities.</p> <p>It is an updated version of the ROCO dataset published in 2018, and includes 35,705 new images added to PubMed since 2018, as well as manually curated medical concepts for modality, body region (X-ray) and directionality (X-ray). The dataset consists of 79,789 images and has been used, with minor modifications, in the concept detection and caption prediction tasks of ImageCLEFmedical 2023. The participants had access to the training and validation sets after signing a user agreement.</p> <p>The dataset is suitable for training image annotation models based on image-caption pairs, or for multi-label image classification using the UMLS concepts provided with each image, e.g., to build systems to support structured medical reporting.</p> <p>Additional possible use cases for the ROCOv2 dataset include the pre-training of models for the medical domain, and the evaluation evaluation of deep learning models for multi-task learning.</p>
Diagnostic accuracy of a set of clinical and radiological criteria for screening of COVID-19 using RT-PCR as the reference standard - Dataset
<p>Dataset of a cohort whose summary is described below.</p> <p>Abstract</p> <p><strong>Objective:</strong> To evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a set of clinical-radiological criteria for COVID-19 screening in patients with severe acute respiratory failure (SARF) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. <strong>Method: </strong>Diagnostic accuracy study including a historical cohort of 1009 patients consecutively admitted to ICUs across six hospitals in Curitiba (Brazil) from March to September, 2020. The sample was stratified into groups by the strength of suspicion for COVID-19 (strong <em>versus</em> weak) using parameters based on three clinical and radiological (chest computed tomography) criteria. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by RT-PCR (referent). <strong>Results:</strong> With respect to RT-PCR, the proposed criteria had 98.5% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 97.5–99.5%) sensitivity, 70% (95% CI 65.8–74.2%) specificity, 85.5% (95% CI 83.4–87.7%) accuracy, PPV of 79.7% (95% CI 76.6–82.7%) and NPV of 97.6% (95% CI 95.9–99.2%). <strong>Conclusion: </strong>The proposed set of clinical-radiological criteria were accurate in identifying patients with strong <em>versus</em> weak suspicion for COVID-19 and had high sensitivity and considerable specificity with respect to RT-PCR. These criteria may be useful for screening COVID-19 in patients presenting with SARF.</p>
Model outputs for the study "Guidance in Radiology Report Summarization: An Empirical Evaluation and Error Analysis"
<p>This resources provides pre-processed input data, model checkpoints and model outputs for experiments on the OpenI dataset in below study. </p> <blockquote> <p>Jan Trienes, Paul Youssef, Jörg Schlötterer, and Christin Seifert. 2023. <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12803">Guidance in Radiology Report Summarization: An Empirical Evaluation and Error Analysis</a>. In Proceedings of the 16th International Natural Language Generation Conference (INLG), Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.</p> </blockquote> <p>For more information please refer to the accompanying paper and code repository (<a href="https://github.com/jantrienes/inlg2023-radsum">https://github.com/jantrienes/inlg2023-radsum</a>).</p> <p><strong>The data is structured as follows:</strong></p> <ul> <li><code>data/preprocessed/</code> includes the dataset(s) for each model</li> <li><code>output/</code> includes one folder for each experiment/model run. The first part of each output path indicates the dataset that was used at inference.</li> <li>For a mapping between model IDs and results in the paper, see below table. All models were also trained <em>with the background section as input. </em>These are available in directories with the <code>-bg-</code> qualifier. </li> </ul> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Model name in paper</th> <th>Output directory</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><em>Results from Table 2</em></td> </tr> <tr> <td>OracleExt</td> <td>openi-unguided/oracle</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BertExt (Liu and Lapata, 2019)</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BertAbs (Liu and Lapata, 2019)</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertabs-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>GSum (Dou et al., 2021)</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-k1/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>GSum w/ LR-Approx</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-lrapprox/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>GSum w/ BERT-Approx</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-bertapprox/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>GSum w/ Thresholding</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-threshold/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>WGSum (Hu et al., 2021)</td> <td>openi-wgsum/wgsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>WGSum+CL (Hu et al., 2022)</td> <td>openi-wgsum-cl/wgsum-cl-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td><em>Results from Table 3</em></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fixed (k=1)</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-k1</td> </tr> <tr> <td>LR-Approx</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-lrapprox</td> </tr> <tr> <td>BERT-Approx</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-bertapprox</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Thresholding</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-threshold</td> </tr> <tr> <td>k = |OracleExt|</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-oracle</td> </tr> <tr> <td><em>Results from Table 4</em></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fixed (Dou et al., 2021)</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-k1/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oracle Length</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-oracle/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oracle Length + Content</td> <td>openi-oracle/gsum-default</td> </tr> <tr> <td><em>Results from Table 5</em></td> </tr> <tr> <td>BertExt w/ k=[1,5]</td> <td>openi-unguided/bertext-default-clip-k{1,2,3,4,5}</td> </tr> <tr> <td>GSum w/ k=[1,5]</td> <td>openi-bertext-default-clip-k{1,2,3,4,5}/gsum-default</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
Clinical Presentation and Radiologic Imaging Findings of Phyllodes Tumors: Benign and Borderline/Malignant Phyllodes Tumors
<p>Edited raw data of study "Clinical Presentation and Radiologic Imaging Findings of Phyllodes Tumors: Benign and Borderline/Malignant Phyllodes Tumors"</p>
FALP Radiology Reports: Annotated corpus for distant metastasis detection
<p>A critical task in oncology is extracting information related to cancer metastasis from electronic health records. Metastasis-related information is crucial for planning treatment, evaluating patient prognoses, and conducting cancer research. Unfortunately, findings of distant metastasis are written in radiology reports, often unstructured, making it difficult to extract relevant information automatically. In this study, we created a manually annotated clinical corpus using radiology reports of prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer patients. We developed a named entity recognition model to capture entities of distant metastasis. The entities were subsequently employed in automatically classifying the reports according to the presence or absence of metastasis. The NER model detected distant metastasis mentions with a weighted average F1 score performance of 0.84. Whole reports were finally classified with an F1 score of 0.92 for documents without distant metastasis (M0) and 0.90 for documents with distant metastasis (M1). These results show the model's usefulness in detecting distant metastasis entities in three different types of cancer and the consequent classification of reports.</p> <p>The manually annotated corpus (FALP Radiology Reports Corpus) and annotation guidelines are freely released to the research community.</p> <p>We are releasing the dataset in 2 formats:</p> <ol> <li>conll_files.zip: Contains the annotated corpus in IOB2 format. This corpus is separated into train, text, and development subsets.</li> <li>text_ann_files.zip: Contains the raw text files for each document along with its annotation file in Standoff format</li> </ol> <p>Annotation guidelines can be found in:</p> <p>Ricardo Ahumada, Pablo Báez, Gisselle Caamaño, Jocelyn Garay, & Inti Paredes. (2023). Annotation Guidelines for FALP radiology reports annotated corpus for distant metastasis detection (1.1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7623509</p> <p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/</a>.</p>
RadCases evaluation results: Evaluating acute image ordering for real-world patient cases via language model alignment with radiological guidelines
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Digital Radiology Case Repository
<p>Radiology case images( DICOM to picture formats eg JPEF,PNG,TIFF etc) with no patient related data or information.</p> <p>These pictures serve as the source for the digital online radiology case repository </p>
TG 91: Radiation Risk Inference at Low-Dose and Low-Dose Rate Exposure for Radiological Protection Purposes
<p>The detriment-adjusted nominal risk coefficients recommended by ICRP have been based, to a large extent, on data obtained from the atomic bomb survivors in Japan. ICRP introduced a Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor (DDREF) of 2 to include in calculations of these risk coefficients for application at the low doses and low-dose rate exposures typical in radiological protection. The DDREF was included to account for the survivors’ single acute exposure, and because a linear quadratic instead of a linear risk to dose response was thought to be the most plausible biological model.</p> <p>This paper summarizes the recent work of ICRP Task Group 91 on this topic. Task Group activities have included reviews of the history of low-dose and low-dose-rate effects, various exposure scenarios and their doses and dose rates, radiation-induced effects at the molecular, cellular, animal, and human level, and biologically-based mechanistic models of carcinogenesis. The Task Group performed a meta-analysis of low-dose-rate epidemiological studies, and re-analyses of published results on radiation-induced effects among animal models and among Japanese atomic bomb survivors.</p>
Radiation Protection Perspective to Recurrent Medical Radiological Imaging
<p>The topic of recurrent radiological imaging of patients attracted attention due to the recent studies indicating the magnitude of this phenomenon and the associated higher cumulated individual exposure to be more extensive than previously known. Recurrent imaging is used for managing various health conditions and chronic diseases such as malignancies, trauma, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, Crohn’s disease, urolithiasis, cystic pulmonary disease. The published studies, although available from only a part of the world, triggered discussion at international level, including two IAEA technical meetings with representatives of the IAEA Member states and international organization. The conclusions to date were reflected in the published Joint Position Statement and Call for Action by nine international organizations aimed to prompt greater dialogue and engage different stakeholders in developing and implementing strategies and solutions focused upon improved radiation protection of patients with medical conditions which prompt more frequent imaging procedures. Such actions include improved access to dose saving imaging technologies; improved imaging strategies and appropriateness process; specific optimization tailored to the clinical condition and patient habitus; wider utilization of the automatic exposure monitoring systems with an integrated option for individual exposure tracking in standardized patient-specific risk metrics; improved training and communication. These might need strengthening in the radiation protection framework to ensure that patients with medical conditions which prompt more frequent imaging procedures receive needed medical care, without undue exposure to ionizing radiation. Standardized and easily available dose information in patient-specific metrics is needed to improve risk quantification. Consensus is still lacking on the proper utilization of the dose information from the previous procedures, and the concern of misuse and misinterpretation, especially by referring physicians and patients, needs to be addressed. Like any other aspect of medical uses of ionizing radiation, the competence and awareness of users of dose information is paramount, and this is linked to the knowledge, education, training and communication. The integration of the clinical and exposure history data will support research studies and improved knowledge about radiation risks from low doses and individual radiosensitivity. The radiation protection framework will need to respond to the challenge of recurrent imaging and high individual doses. The radiation protection perspective complements the clinical perspective, and the risk to benefit analysis must account in holistic for all incidental and long-term benefits and risks for patients, their clinical history and specific needs. This is a step toward the patient-centric healthcare.</p>
Does the System of Radiological Protection Require Science to the Nth Degree to be Fit For Purpose?
<p>The objective of the of the System is "to contribute to an appropriate level of protection for people and the environment" according to ICRP 103. This may be broadly accepted as the purpose of the System. An inherent requirement for protection is an understanding of the risk, where the System burdens Radiation Protection Practitioners with an assumption; a theory. Adoption of LNT has made it mandatory to wear 7 kg of PPE during for a long surgery with a short X-ray exam in the middle, adding a risk of musculoskeletal injuries. In a practical, holistic approach to safety accepting the risk of life long debilitating injury to avoid 0.0025% risk of cancer at some uncertain time is difficult to justify. The discussion paper acknowledges the uncertainty of the LNT Hypothesis. However, despite the uncertainty proposes its continuation at all radiation levels.</p> <p>Is the purpose of the System the pursuit of pure science, or is the purpose to provide practitioners with the ability to protect people?</p>
TG 115: Risk and Dose Assessment for Radiological Protection of Astronauts
<p>During the past six decades, many human spaceflights have been launched. Among the factors that affect health and performance of astronauts during and after their space missions, space radiation presents unique challenges. ICRP Publication 123 (2013) addressed the challenges in the assessment of space radiation exposure to astronauts, covering radiation environments in space, quantities used in radiological protection, methods of measurement, radiation fields inside spacecraft and on planetary surfaces, radiation fields and doses in the human body, and a short section on operational radiological protection.</p> <p>Currently, space agencies involved in human spaceflight use a variety of methods and quantities to assess dose and risks to their astronauts, as well as a variety of restrictions in the management of human spaceflights. In 2018, agencies involved in the International Space Station (ISS) proposed collaboration with ICRP to examine effects that may impact crew health and mission success, and to develop a common health risk assessment framework and recommendations on exposure limits for exploration-class human spaceflight missions. In response, ICRP established TG115 Risk and Dose Assessment for Radiological Protection of Astronauts to develop a comprehensive framework for risk and dose assessment for radiological protection of astronauts, including a set of basic objectives, a review of the current understanding of effects and risks from space radiation, a broadly-applicable risk and dose assessment methodology, and an assessment of the use of risk as a radiological protection quantity. Health endpoints considered by TG115 include cancer, however, the intent is to broaden the scope to include additional endpoints including potential tissue effects.</p> <p>This paper provides an update on current activities of TG115. It is envisaged that, on the long-term, TG115 will address how the principles of radiological protection are applied to space environment. The effort may lead to recommendations on setting and using numerical values of limits, constraints, and reference levels. This would mirror ICRP Publication 132 (2016), where radiological protection from cosmic radiation in aviation is addressed.</p>
Attitudes of Staff Involved in Dental Radiological Procedures in Georgia Towards Radiation Protection and Safety: A Questionnaire-Based Study
<p>Objectives: To investigate dentist’s perceptions and attitudes regarding radiation safety in dental practices in Georgia.</p> <p>Methods: More than 100 dentists involved in dental X-ray diagnostic procedures across the country participated in this study. The questionnaire was submitted via Google form, a total of 17 key questions with relevant sub-questions. Further data were evaluated according to the frequency distribution. An anonymous survey was conducted regarding the following areas: years of practice, types and characteristics of the radiography equipment, knowledge of BSS and national regulations, prescription of dental radiographs, use of radiation protection equipment, participation in the radiation safety training program and etc.</p> <p>Results: The obtained data are presented in the form of tables and diagrams. Analysis of the answers showed a fairly high level of knowledge and responsibility for radiation safety among all survey participants. A certain difference in the answers depends both on work experience, education and on a number of other factors, for the study of which additional research is needed.</p> <p>Conclusions: This article is the first study in Georgia conducted jointly by a scientific organization, a national regulatory authority, as well as educational and professional structures. The analysis of the results of the presented questionnaire, on the one hand, allows the assessment of mandatory knowledge of radiation protection and safety issues of the target personnel. On the other hand, such feedback based on statistical data is a prerequisite for the revision of possible further regulatory requirements. Staff awareness issues involve the involvement of the relevant professional associations, which will allow it to strengthen the requirements for its members in the long run, as well as better analyze existing practices.</p>
Developing the System of Radiological Protection to Enhance Its Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
<p>The system of radiological protection has evolved since the publication of the ICRP’s first set of recommendations in 1959. It has enabled the beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive substances while protecting humans from their harmful tissue reactions and carcinogenic (and other stochastic) effects. The system has arguably been world leading in the protection of humans from carcinogens.</p> <p>Since the publication of the most recent ICRP recommendations in 2007 the pace of change in global socio-economic challenges and environmental degradation has accelerated. We face climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies as well as global health crises such as Covid-19 and increases in non-communicable diseases such as cancer.</p> <p>In addressing the global issues we face it is therefore more important than ever to take an integrated approach to balancing social, environmental and economic risks and impacts. In the context of radiological protection it is vital that our efforts to reduce or control radiation risks consider the wider consequences of those efforts if we are to avoid causing more harm than good.</p> <p>The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an ideal framework for facilitating a balanced approach to socio-economic development and environmental protection and enhancement. They recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with improving health and education, reducing inequality, and spurring economic growth – all while tackling climate change and preserving our environment.</p> <p>The ICRP system of radiological protection is based on three fundamental principles: justification, optimisation and the limitation of radiation exposure. The principle of justification requires that any decision that changes the amount of radiation exposure should do more good than harm. Optimisation requires that radiation exposure should be kept as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and societal factors. Optimisation is not the minimisation of radiation exposure rather the maximising of the net benefit relative to the radiation exposure.</p> <p>This paper explores how the system of radiological protection contributes to the delivery of sustainable development and considers how the SDGs might be taken into account in its further development and application to ensure that the system is fit for the 21st century.</p>
Radiological Risk in the Global Burden of Disease
<p>The contribution of radioactivity to the overall burden of disease has rarely been put in context of overall pollution of our environment, even though it has got high public interest as stand-alone problem. Indeed, radioactive pollution is not even mentioned in World health statistics 2020. Is it less important for health than in public policies? There is no general accepted common frame of reference, which would allow comparing risks of none-radioactive and radioactive pollutants and sharing methods for risk management. Annually, the WHO compares the impact of chemotoxic risk with those of many other risk factors, using the global burden of diseases and the disability adjusted loss of life years (DALY), a concept that has only recently been applied to radioactive contamination by Japanese researchers. Despite some effort for risk comparison, there seems to be a silent agreement between the experts from IAEA, WHO, OECD-NEA, ICRP and many national bodies as well as antinuclear civil society groups, in the field of assessing the health impact of radiotoxicity to treat radioactivity apart. Maybe, one of the reasons is that on global level, the largest impact of radiation stems from natural radioactivity. Taking for example the public debate on potential risks from future radioactive waste disposal sites. Compared to the risk from natural radiation, the risk contribution to future generations from a radioactive waste disposal site is expected to be thousand to millon times lower. And this risk is not for the next 10000 yrs but only for the time very much beyond, close to the age of the homo sapiens. Expressed in DALY, the number of cancers cases formally attributable to a life long exposure situation by natural radiation of 1 mSv corresponds for example for the japaneze population to a reduction of life expectancy of about 1 to 1.5 month for man or woman. Hence, the impact of a radioactive waste disposal site on potential reduction of life expencency of future generations will be well below 1 day. Probably, life expectency is even increased by geological disposal, as it reduces the risk stemming from surface storage sites, which are difficult to be controlled over the time of many generations. The ICRP shall help understanding radiological risks in the overall context of other risks, the society is taking everyday.</p>
TG 114: Reasonableness and Tolerability in the System Of Radiological Protection: ICRP TG114 On-Going Reflections
<p>The model of reasonableness and tolerability of radiological risk is a conceptual framework for the implementation of the ICRP principles of optimisation of protection (guided by constraints and reference levels) and application of dose limits, based mainly on the level of exposure, and closely related to the level of risk. Discussions about reasonableness and tolerability have been part of ICRP publications for many years, including the introduction of a model of risk tolerability in Publication 60. More recently, Publication 101 developed the approach to address the implementation of the optimisation process including the involvement of stakeholders and the way to elucidate what is reasonably achievable. Further considerations have been addressed while examining the ethic, identifying four core values underpinning the system of radiological protection (Publication 138). In 2019, ICRP has set up a dedicated task group (TG114) to review the historical and current perspectives on reasonableness and tolerability in order to consolidate and clarify Publication 103, and to prepare the considerations and basis needed for development of future recommendations.</p> <p>The ICRP on-going reflections on reasonableness and tolerability in the system of radiological protection have started to addressed a series of questions including, for example: What is the link between tolerable and reasonable? What are the considerations and criteria on which the concepts of tolerability and reasonableness are based? What are some strategies to assist in balancing competing values in determining what is tolerable and/or reasonable?</p> <p>For addressing these questions, the model of reasonableness and tolerability of radiological risk is revisited with the following objectives:</p> <ul> <li>Investigate the rational for the application of the tolerability of risk as well as the borders with unacceptable level of risks and compare with the approaches adopted for managing other risks.</li> <li>Better articulate the link between tolerability and reasonableness in the process of implementation the radiological protection system, with clarification on the criteria to be considered for defining “where we don’t want to go above” and which process could be put in place for evaluating “what is reasonable”.</li> <li>Refine the radiological criteria to be considered and their link with dose limits and reference levels, relying on the radiological detriment as benchmark for tolerability and reasonableness as well as using risk comparison but without limiting to numerical criteria.</li> <li>Emphasize the importance of the application of the model for the different exposure situations, including the deliberative process with the stakeholders for the implementation of the optimisation principle, referring to good judgement, fairness, practicability, and moderateness.</li> </ul> <p>Presented by Thierry Schneider on behalf of the whole Task Group.</p>
Making ICRP Recommendations 'Fit For Purpose' for the Response to a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency
<p><em>Background:</em> ICRP recommendations need to be made fit for purpose for the response to a nuclear or radiological emergency. While the System of Radiological Protection has performed well to meet its primary objective ‘to contribute to an appropriate level of protection for people…’ in normal, routine activities (planned exposure situations), the System has failed in its objective related to protection of the people in emergency exposure situations. This is evident from the excess deaths, increases in morbidity (e.g., diabetes, heart diseases) and other severe effects (e.g., mental, economic, social) observed after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. These adverse effects resulted from protective actions taken to avert radiation exposure, consistent with international recommendations, even though the radiation health effects avoided are negligible and not discernible. These actions were therefore not justified based on the hazard to health from radiation exposure. Too much emphasis is given to protection of people from the radiation, without due consideration to the impact of the protective action. Thus justification – to do more good than harm – is not being realised. The principle of justification has not been thoroughly or correctly considered before, in part because no tools were provided to allow the risk of protective actions to be put in perspective, so our analysis will provide a technical basis for the development of such tools.</p> <p><em>Methods:</em> Meta-analysis of more than 600 papers focusing on protective actions and non-radiological health effects for different disasters (including nuclear and natural disasters). Analysis in terms of absolute risk (cases per 1000) of the health effects resulting from protective actions and radiation health effects from the averted dose based on the LNT fatal risk coefficient of 5% per Sv.</p> <p><em>Results</em>: Preliminary results are presented. We estimate approximately 15 excess early deaths per 1000 among the general population and 30 among those in long term care facilities following dislocations resulting from protective actions, while only 1 hypothetical excess radiation-induced cancer (late) death per 1000 would be averted if protective actions are taken at 20 mSv total effective dose – a criterion used in many countries for implementation of protective actions.</p> <p><em>Conclusions:</em> Implementing protective actions can result in more excess deaths than assumed to result from the radiation expose averted. Such negative impacts to the health of people must be accounted for in the System of Radiological Protection and recommendations concerning their application, or they are failing to protect people effectively.</p>
Radiological Assessment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Primer for Resident.
<p>I uploaded the images of the manuscript "Radiological Assessment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Primer for Resident" submitted and accepted in European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences.</p>
The Effect of Bone Graft Substitute in Healing Fractures with Bone Defects Through Examination of Alkaline Phosphatase and Radiology in the Murine Model (Rattus norvegicus) Wistar strain
<p>Raw data for manuscript with the title <strong>The Effect of Bone Graft Substitute in Healing Fractures with Bone Defects Through Examination of Alkaline Phosphatase and Radiology in the Murine Model (<em>Rattus norvegicus</em>) Wistar strain </strong></p>
Assessment of Natural Radioactivity Levels and Estimation of Radiological Hazards in Building Materials Commonly Used in Ethiopian Constructions.
<p>Natural radionuclide activity concentrations were measured in ceramic, gypsum, and brick samples from manufacturers, dealers, and construction sites in and around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, using an HPGe detector. The study's main objectives were to assess the building material activity and health impacts. Average activity concentrations (Bq.kg<sup>-1</sup>) for <sup>226</sup>Ra in ceramic, gypsum, and brick samples were obtained as 81.19 ± 1.88, 1.34 ± 0.17, and 39.83 ± 1.21, respectively. Respective values of <sup>232</sup>Th were obtained as 166.12 ± 4.20, 0.68 ± 0.18, and 103.71 ± 3.29 and concentrations of <sup>40</sup>K were found to be 755.06 ± 16.10,15.42 ± 1.97, and 921.22 ± 24.90, respectively. Some of the materials that were tested, especially the ceramic sample, had slightly higher concentrations of radionuclides. In all samples except ceramic, Ra<sub>eq </sub>was < 370 Bq.kg<sup>-1</sup>, which is the recommended limiting dose for bulk medium. Furthermore, the corresponding radiological parameters, absorbed dose, annual effective dose equivalent, excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR), internal (H<sub>in</sub>) and external (H<sub>ex</sub>) hazard indexes, gamma index (Iγ), and alpha index (Iα) were determined. The ELCR average values in this study are slightly higher than the global average, and the indoor and outdoor absorbed dose rates are greater than the limiting criteria of 84 and 59 nGyh<sup>-1</sup>. Therefore, especially for ceramic samples, it is important to assess their radiation potential and should be utilized in a controlled manner to decrease gamma exposure to inhabitants. Finally, the computed data could be used as a baseline to look at any radiological contamination caused by construction materials in the future.</p>
Time is money: Considerations for measuring the radiological reading time
<p>reporting/ RIS-Timestamps and real-time assessment.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.