{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017132551848512173, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009017132551848512, 'mean_word_length': 5.529411764705882, '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}}
AMBER and conventional chest radiography: comparison of radiation dose and image quality.

The authors compared the radiation dose to the patient and the image quality in advanced multiple-beam equalization radiography (AMBER) with those in conventional chest radiography. Organ doses were estimated for an anthropomorphic phantom from measurements with thermoluminescence dosimeters. These measurements were supplemented with area-air kerma products obtained during chest examinations of 223 patients. Image quality was determined by means of a contrast-detail image evaluation test. An improvement in image quality in regions of high absorption and an increased dose to the patient were found for the AMBER technique compared with the conventional technique. However, for both techniques, the radiation exposure was relatively low compared with other reported values of patient dose during chest radiography. The estimated effective dose for an average-size patient during chest radiography with posteroanterior and lateral projections is 0.085 mSv for the conventional and 0.14 mSv for the AMBER technique.