Overuse of CT-based cerebrovascular imaging in the emergency department and inpatient settings, notably CTA of the head and neck for minor and nonfocal neurologic presentations, stresses imaging services and exposes patients to radiation and contrast. Furthermore, such CT-based imaging is often insufficient for definitive diagnosis, necessitating additional MR imaging. Recent advances in fast MRI may allow timely assessment and a reduced need for head and neck CTA in select populations.

We identified inpatients or patients in the emergency department who underwent CTAHN (including noncontrast and postcontrast head CT, with or without CTP imaging) followed within 24 hours by a 3T MRI study that included a 2.5-minute unenhanced multicontrast sequence (NeuroMix) and a 5-minute intracranial time of flight MRA) during a 9-month period (April to December 2022). Cases were classified by 4 radiologists in consensus as to whether NeuroMix and NeuroMix + MRA detected equivalent findings, detected unique findings, or missed findings relative to CTAHN.

One hundred seventy-four cases (mean age, 67 [SD, 16] years; 56% female) met the inclusion criteria. NeuroMix alone and NeuroMix + MRA protocols were determined to be equivalent or better compared with CTAHN in 71% and 95% of patients, respectively. NeuroMix always provided equivalent or better assessment of the brain parenchyma, with unique findings on NeuroMix and NeuroMix + MRA in 35% and 36% of cases, respectively, most commonly acute infarction or multiple microhemorrhages. In 8/174 cases (5%), CTAHN identified vascular abnormalities not seen on the NeuroMix + MRA protocol due to the wider coverage of the cervical arteries by CTAHN.

A fast MR imaging protocol consisting of NeuroMix + MRA provided equivalent or better information compared with CTAHN in 95% of cases in our population of patients with an acute neurologic presentation. The findings provide a deeper understanding of the benefits and challenges of a fast unenhanced MR-first approach with NeuroMix + MRA, which could be used to design prospective trials in select patient groups, with the potential to reduce radiation dose, mitigate adverse contrast-related patient and environmental effects, and lessen the burden on radiologists and health care systems.

Patients may seek online information to better understand medical imaging procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of information provided by 2 popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pertaining to common imaging scenarios' risks, benefits, and alternatives.

Fourteen imaging-related scenarios pertaining to computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used. Factors including the use of intravenous contrast, the presence of renal disease, and whether the patient was pregnant were included in the analysis. For each scenario, 3 prompts for outlining the (1) risks, (2) benefits, and (3) alternative imaging choices or potential implications of not using contrast were inputted into ChatGPT and Bard. A grading rubric and a 5-point Likert scale was used by 2 independent reviewers to grade responses. Prompt variability and chatbot context dependency were also assessed.

ChatGPT's performance was superior to Bard's in accurately responding to prompts per Likert grading (4.36 ± 0.63 vs 3.25 ± 1.03 seconds, P < .0001). There was substantial agreement between independent reviewer grading for ChatGPT (κ = 0.621) and Bard (κ = 0.684). Response text length was not statistically different between ChatGPT and Bard (2087 ± 256 characters vs 2162 ± 369 characters, P = .24). Response time was longer for ChatGPT (34 ± 2 vs 8 ± 1 seconds, P < .0001).

ChatGPT performed superior to Bard at outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives to common imaging scenarios. Generally, context dependency and prompt variability did not change chatbot response content. Due to the lack of detailed scientific reasoning and inability to provide patient-specific information, both AI chatbots have limitations as a patient information resource.

The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is a patient-exposure optimization tool used to evaluate radiation doses in medical imaging and provide guidance for protection from them. In Thailand, nuclear medicine DRLs have not been established yet. Therefore, this study surveyed dose levels in routine nuclear medicine procedures to provide national DRLs (NDRLs). Methods: NDRLs in Thailand were established by investigating the administered activity of radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine examination studies. The NDRLs were determined on the basis of the 75th percentile (third quartile) of administered activity distribution as recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. As part of a nationwide survey, datasets for the period between June 1, 2018, and August 31, 2019, were collected from 21 Thailand hospitals with nuclear medicine equipment. All hospitals were asked to report the nuclear medicine imaging devices in use, the standard protocol parameters for selected examinations, the injected activities, and the ages and weights of patients. All data were calculated to determine Thailand NDRLs, which were compared with international NDRLs. Results: The data reported by the 21 hospitals consisted of 4,641 examinations with SPECT or SPECT/CT for general nuclear medicine and 409 examinations with PET. The most widely performed examinations for SPECT were bone, thyroid, oncology, and cardiovascular imaging. The NDRLs for SPECT or SPECT/CT agreed well with published NDRLs for Europe, the United States, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Australia. In contrast, the NDRLs for 18F-FDG PET in oncology studies were higher than for Japan, Korea, Kuwait, and Australia but lower than for the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Conclusion: This study presents NDRL results for adults in Thailand as a way to optimize radiation protection in nuclear medicine imaging. Moreover, the reported injected activity levels were comparable to those of other countries.

The liver and biliary tree are common sites of primary and secondary malignancies. MRI followed by CT is the mainstay for the imaging characterization of these malignancies with the dynamically acquired contrast enhanced phases being the most important for diagnosis. The liver imaging reporting and data system classification provides a useful framework for reporting lesions in patents with underlying cirrhosis or who are at high risk for developing hepatocellular carcinoma. Detection of metastases is improved with the use of liver specific MRI contrast agents and diffusion weighted sequences. Aside from hepatocellular carcinoma, which is often diagnosed noninvasively, other primary hepatobiliary tumors may require biopsy for definite diagnosis, especially when presenting with nonclassic imaging findings. In this review, we examine the imaging findings of common and less common hepatobiliary tumors.

Since I started my residency program in Radiology, I have been committed to promoting radiation protection, paying particular attention to the justification and optimization of the examinations [...].

Total exposure to ionizing radiation has nearly doubled in the last two decades. This increase is primarily due to increased computed tomography (CT) exposure. Concerns have been raised about the risks associated with patients' exposure to medical imaging radiation, which can increase a person's lifetime risk of developing cancer. Preventing unnecessary examinations becomes critical at this point. To avoid unnecessary examinations, it is necessary to understand the demanding process.

To ascertain clinicians' awareness of and reasons for requesting a CT examination.

We developed an online questionnaire that included 20 questions about clinicians' awareness of radiation safety and their reasons for requesting a CT examination, as well as demographic information such as age, gender, and year of medical practice experience. Additionally, we asked participants the number of CT scans requested in a month, the patients' questions and approaches about the imaging method, the effect of the patient's previous imaging history on the current imaging request, whether they believed that they had sufficient information about radiation doses, and whether they requested CT without an indication. We administered the questionnaire to clinicians from a variety of different professions in four different cities.

A total of 195 clinicians participated. Internal medicine specialists were the most crowded group (38/195, 19.5%). Mean age of the population was 33.66 ± 5.92 years. Mean year of experience was 9.01 ± 5.96. Mean number of requested CT scans in a month was 36.88 ± 5.86. Forty-five (23.1%) participants stated that they requested CT scans without clinical indication. The most common reasons for CT scan requests were work load, fear of malpractice, and patient demand/insistence.

CT scan requests are influenced by a variety of factors, both internal and external to the doctors and patients. Raising awareness of radiation safety and reducing fear of malpractice by limiting the number of patients per physician may result in a reduction in unnecessary CT examinations and ionizing radiation exposure.

The purpose of this IAEA-coordinated international study was to understand aspects related to the communication of radiation risk from imaging studies, such as how often imaging department personnel and referring physicians are asked about radiation risks in diagnostic imaging, who asks about these risks, how often professionals are able to provide satisfactory answers using qualitative metrics and how often quantitative risk estimates are needed. A web-based questionnaire with ten questions was completed by 386 healthcare professionals from 63 countries from all four continents, including clinicians/referring physicians (42.5%), radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (26.7%), medical physicists (23.1%), radiographers/radiological technologists (6.2%) and others (1.6%). The results indicate that radiation risk-related questions are largely asked by patients (73.1%) and parents of child patients (38.6%), and 78% of the professionals believe they are able to answer those questions using qualitative metrics such as very small/minimal, small, medium rather than number of cancers likely occurring. The vast majority, with over three times higher frequency, indicated the purpose of knowing previous radiological exams as 'both clinical information and radiation exposure history' rather than 'only clinical information'. Nearly two-thirds of the clinicians/referring physicians indicated that knowing the radiation exposure history of the patient will affect their decision-making for the next exam, as against only about one-fifth who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. The same question, when addressed to radiologists, resulted in a slightly larger fraction of about three-quarters who said 'yes', as opposed to a smaller fraction of about 12% who said 'no, it will not affect their decision-making'. Mapping the present situation of communication of benefits and risks for patients is important and may be the basis of further analysis, regular monitoring and possibly a target for clinical audits. Further studies focused on specific professional groups might help in obtaining á deeper understanding of the need for practical communication tools.

We aimed to evaluate the impact of a low-dose whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) protocol on radiation doses in paediatric major trauma patients. Retrospective cohort study of paediatric trauma patients (<16 years) at a national level 1 paediatric trauma centre (PTC) over a 6 year period prior and post introduction of a low-dose WBCT protocol (2014-2019). Demographic data, patient characteristics, CT device, and exposure information including scan range, dose-length product, and volume CT dose index were collected. Effective dose (ED) and exposure parameters were compared before and after protocol introduction. Forty-eight patients underwent WBCT during the study period. Prior to introduction of the low-dose protocol (n= 18), the ED was 20.6 mSv (median 20.1 ± 5.3 mSv [range 12.5-30.7]). After introduction of the low-dose WBCT protocol (n= 30), mean ED was 4.8 mSv (median 2.6 ± 5.0 [range: 0.8-19.1]). This resulted in a reduction of 77% in mean ED (pvalue <0.001). Significant radiation dose reduction of 77% can be achieved with low-dose WBCT protocols in PTCs.

Medical imaging professionals have an accountability for both quality and safety in the care of patients that have unexpected or anticipated repeated imaging examinations that use ionizing radiation. One measure in the safety realm for repeated imaging is cumulative effective dose (CED). CED has been increasingly scrutinized in patient populations, including adults and children. Recognizing the challenges with effective dose, including the cumulative nature, effective dose is still the most prevalent exposure currency for recurrent imaging examinations. While the responsibility for dose monitoring incorporates an element of tracking an individual patient cumulative radiation record, a more complex aspect is what should be done with this information. This challenge also differs between the pediatric and adult population, including the fact that high cumulative doses (e.g.,>100 mSv) are reported to occur much less frequently in children than in the adult population. It is worthwhile, then, to review the general construct of CED, including the comparison between the relative percentage occurrence in adult and pediatric populations, the relevant pediatric medical settings in which high CED occurs, the advances in medical care that may affect CED determinations in the future, and offer proposals for the application of the CED paradigm, considering the unique aspects of pediatric care.

Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures.

To assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks.

A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020.

Survey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues.

Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P < .001) and having a higher educational level (intermediate vs low: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P < .001; high vs low: OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.09-3.43; P < .001).

The results of this survey suggest that patients undergoing medical imaging procedures have overall limited knowledge about medical radiation. Intervention to achieve better patient awareness of radiation risks related to medical exposures may be beneficial.

ALARA is the acronym for "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." It is a radiation protection concept borne from the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. There are no valid data today supporting the use of LNT in the low-dose range, so dose as a surrogate for risk in radiological imaging is not appropriate, and therefore, the use of the ALARA concept is obsolete. Continued use of an outdated and erroneous principle unnecessarily constrains medical professionals attempting to deliver high-quality care to patients by leading to a reluctance by doctors to order images, a resistance from patients/parents to receive images, subquality images, repeated imaging, increased radiation exposures, the stifling of low-dose radiation research and treatment, and the propagation of radiophobia and continued endorsement of ALARA by regulatory bodies. All these factors result from the fear of radiogenic cancer, many years in the future, that will not occur. It has been established that the dose threshold for leukemia is higher than previously thought. A low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging will likely upregulate the body's adaptive protection systems leading to the prevention of future cancers. The ALARA principle, as used as a radiation protection principle throughout medicine, is scientifically defunct and should be abandoned.

Medical imaging is the main source of artificial radiation exposure. Evidence, however, suggests that patients are poorly informed about radiation exposure when attending diagnostic scans. This review provides an overview of published literature with a focus on nuclear medicine patients on the level of awareness of radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging.

A review of available literature on awareness, knowledge and perception of ionising radiation in medical imaging was conducted. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were subjected to critical appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

140 articles identified and screened for eligibility, 24 critically assessed and 4 studies included in synthesis. All studies demonstrated that patients were generally lacking awareness about radiation exposure and highlighted a lack of communication between healthcare professionals and patients with respect to radiation exposure.

Studies demonstrate a need to better inform patients about their radiation exposure, and further studies focusing on nuclear medicine patients are particularly warranted.

Adequate and accurate information is crucial to ensure the principle of informed consent is present.

"I am not young enough to know everything."Oscar Wilde.

There is insufficient knowledge among providers and patients/caregivers of ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging examinations. This study used a brief, interactive educational intervention targeting the topics of best imaging practices and radiation safety early in health professions students' training. The authors hypothesized that public health, medical, and physician assistant students who receive early education for imaging appropriateness and radiation safety will undergo a change in attitude and have increased awareness and knowledge of these topics.

The authors conducted a 1.5-hour interactive educational intervention focusing on medical imaging utilization and radiation safety. Students were presented with a pre/postquestionnaire and data were analyzed using t tests and multivariate analysis of variance.

A total of 301 students were enrolled in the study. There was 58% (P < .01) and 85% (P < .01) improvement in attitude and knowledge regarding appropriateness of imaging, respectively. The authors also found an 8% increase (P < .01) in students who thought informed consent should be obtained prior to pediatric computed tomographic imaging. Physical assistant students were more likely than medical students to prefer obtaining informed consent at baseline (P = .03).

A brief educational session provided to health professions students early in their education showed an increased awareness and knowledge of the utility, limitations, and risks associated with medical imaging. Incorporation of a best imagining practice educational session early during medical education may promote more thoughtful imaging decisions for future medical providers.