3 ms·
I interpret the linked article different. Can you elaborate? For example (from the summary): =============================== "CONCLUSION. Radiation exposure
by Jupe 5y ago
I interpret the linked article different. Can you elaborate?
For example (from the summary):
===============================
"CONCLUSION. Radiation exposure from the use of CT in the evaluation and management of severe traumatic brain injury causes negligible increases in lifetime attributable risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality. Treating physicians should not allow the concern for future risk of radiation-induced cancer to influence decisions regarding radiographic evaluation in the acute treatment of traumatic brain injury."
(edited: formatting)
- jozvolskyef 5y agoExcess Cancer Mortality per 100,000 individuals exposed to 100mSv is ~1000 in the 1 year-old male cohort. A single scan is ~3mSv, which makes the mortality ~30 per 100k, or 1 in ~3333, assuming the linear no-threshold model[1]. When someone comes to the ER with a traumatic brain injury, a CT scan is the standard practice because they are at a high risk of dying and presumably the scan is important for reducing the risk. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
- mercutio2 5y agoI'm so glad you mentioned the linear no-threshold model. Do you believe in it? I don't, particularly at the single digit mSv level.
- jozvolskyef 5y agoAt some point there will be enough data from different countries to confidently support or reject it. Until then I see it as the preferred hypothesis by Occam's razor and also because I'd rather err on the side of caution.
- gilbetron 5y agoYou need to read those things literally. It doesn't mean CT scans should be used whenever a doctor thinks. It means that a doctor evaluating a TBI should be ok with using it. Basically, the odds switch when there is an additional symptom that there is something wrong with the head.