{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014414414414414415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004804804804804805, 'mean_word_length': 4.9928057553956835, '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}}
A practical method to standardise and optimise the Philips DoseRight 2.0 CT automatic exposure control system

Given the increasing use of computed tomography (CT) in the UK over the last 30 years, it is essential to ensure that all imaging protocols are optimised to keep radiation doses as low as reasonably practicable, consistent with the intended clinical task. However, the complexity of modern CT equipment can make this task difficult to achieve in practice. Recent results of local patient dose audits have shown discrepancies between two Philips CT scanners that use the DoseRight 2.0 automatic exposure control (AEC) system in the ‘automatic’ mode of operation. The use of this system can result in drifting dose and image quality performance over time as it is designed to evolve based on operator technique. The purpose of this study was to develop a practical technique for configuring examination protocols on four CT scanners that use the DoseRight 2.0 AEC system in the ‘manual’ mode of operation. This method used a uniform phantom to generate reference images which form the basis for how the AEC system calculates exposure factors for any given patient. The results of this study have demonstrated excellent agreement in the configuration of the CT scanners in terms of average patient dose and image quality when using this technique. This work highlights the importance of CT protocol harmonisation in a modern Radiology department to ensure both consistent image quality and radiation dose. Following this study, the average radiation dose for a range of CT examinations has been reduced without any negative impact on clinical image quality.