{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030959752321981424, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009287925696594427, 'mean_word_length': 5.6438356164383565, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Computed Tomography Dose Monitoring: Is Radiation Dose the Wrong Patient Imaging Risk to Manage?

As an early advocate and one of the coauthors of the American Association of Physicists inMedicine (AAPM) TaskGroup 204, which developed the size-specific dose estimate, I recognize the importance of managing computed tomography (CT) radiation dose risks. Computed tomography dose risks have certainly captured the attention of medical practitioners, researchers, regulators, and the public media. The recent excellent review article by Frush et al encourages a systematic approach to monitor and control CT dose risks (volume 9, number 4, December 2013, “Radiation Protection and Dose Monitoring in Medical Imaging: A Journey From Awareness, Through Accountability, Ability and Action—But Where Will We Arrive?”). However, there is another risk that deserves equally rigorous and systematic methods of management. The risk of not obtaining the needed diagnostic informa-