Talk:Radiation exposure

Workplan
Hello, I am a medical student who is interested in editing this Wikipedia article for a school project. I am interested in applying to radiology and a popular topic I have encountered is radiation exposure from medical imaging. Here is my proposed workplan for the month of 3/2022:

Why this article: 100 viewers per day stub class, mid importance for wikiproj medicine. It is requested that an image or images be included in the article to improve its quality. I am interested in adding new information for a popular radiology article, including comparing relative doses of X-Ray vs CT scan, explaining how to quantify radiation exposure to humans, the biological effect of radiation, including recommendations and guidelines from the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and risks to health care workers as a result of radiation exposure.

Initial Analysis of Article: Intro: is not easy for reader to understand, does not quantify exposure in a way that is relatable for readers Content: only has info for exposure conversion to absorbed dose, exposure rate constant, radiation measurement quantities. Low amount of information in article. However, it is neutral/unbiased. The citations all have working links to appropriate sources. Topic “exposure conversion to absorbed dose” – missing section on effective dose. "Exposure rate constant section" and "radiation measurement quantities section" – not applicable to medical imaging, but I will keep it there in case anyone interested in nuclear engineering wants to read it. References: There are less than 10 references, however the references are high quality. Last sentence of introduction has no reference. All other sections have complete references.

What I will add: Relevant images Add sections on: -Week 1: definitions of radiation dose in medical imaging units (mSv miliseivert), effective dose and tissue weighting factors (how much radiation dose a part of the body receives depending on type of tissue) -Week 2: effects on fetus, risk vs benefit of diagnostic testing -Week 3: dose response curve (how risk of radiation is extrapolated from known high doses ie atomic bomb survivors), risk of radiation exposure in everyday US activities vs common medical imaging, risk of cancer -Week 4: how radiologists minimize exposure for patients (ALARA as low as reasonably achievable guidelines, technical safeguards, avoiding overuse)

Sources: -https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4 (international commission on radiological protection) – 400 page document -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565909/ review article on radiation exposure of medical imaging

Questions: I plan to reference primarily the 2007 recommendation from international commission on radiological protection. Is that ok? It contains dozens of references. I may select articles from the references section of that paper and cite them here.

Thank you. Best, MedicalWiki123 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That all seems appropriate. Secondary sources and consensus/position statements like you refer to are typically the preferred type. See WP:MEDRS. The only recommendation is not rely entirely one a single source if you are making large additions. MartinezMD (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing my plan! I will be sure to cite additional references so one source will not dominate the additions on this page. MedicalWiki123 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer-Reviewee Comments
Feedback on Goals Week 1: Feedback on Goals for Week 2: Feedback on Goals for Week 3: Overall: Also, job well done including a brief overview of the article. However, I suggest revising the second paragraph, first part of sentence prior to first comma: ‘This article will discuss the common used to describe medical radiation’. May be missing a word (definition?).
 * Clear definitions of effective dose and tissue weighting factors. I would suggest adding in-text citations following these definitions as it would provide support for those statements.
 * Included a table for effective dose comparisons in medical imaging section.
 * Great work including section on ‘risk to embryo and fetus’. This section is well supported by in-text citations.
 * It appears that you are still in the process of working on the goal of discussing risk vs benefit of diagnostic testing. I would love to see more of this as I would imagine this would be of great interest to the general public.
 * Dose response curve explanation provides a nice framework for the concept. I would suggest adding definitions/labeled axes to the images in this section to improve readability.
 * The table on the natural radioactivity in food provides a great addition to the article. I think addition of this information will be of interest to the general public visiting this page. If possible, is there a way to compare this to medical imaging by adding a column to the table?
 * Lead: Good job providing a clear and brief overview. I suggest adding a space before the sentence that starts with ‘Medical exposure is defined by the…’.
 * Content: The content added is relevant to the topic. The use of images and tables are helpful to visualize the information.
 * Balance: the article appears neutral and without heavy bias.
 * Readability: based on Hemingway editor it is poor at post-graduate level. I would suggest utilizing the app to improve readability of the article if time permits.
 * Sources: there are reliable sources referenced and some new up to date sources from 2022. I would suggest erasing the ‘notes’ subheading and placing the numbered list of sources under the ‘references’ subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaramelMind (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor response to peer review
Hi CaramelMind, thank you for reviewing my article! Please find my response to your feedback below: Week 1: - thanks for the tip, I went over all the sections I created to look for missing citations, and I added them. Week 2: -Yes, I would still like to include a discussion of risk vs benefit of diagnostic testing. Time permitting, I will try to add a section about the benefits of diagnostic testing. However, I spent a majority of my time this week proofreading for citations, and improving readability. Week 3: -I am interested in adding definitions/labeled axes to the image, and will get to this if time permits. Overall: -thank you for the constructive feedback. I edited the sentence 'Medical exposure is defined by the…’. -For the sentence: ‘This article will discuss the common used to describe medical radiation’., I removed it because I added a new description of each topic in the Lead. -readability - Thank you for pointing this issue out. I spent a majority of this week editing the text to make it easier to read. I used the hemingway editor app and also found that much of the article is post-graduate level. However, after removing the citations from the Hemingway editor, I found some of the sentences improved. Also, some of the sentences include definitions that were taken from international guidelines. It would not be appropriate to alter these sentences. For other sentences that were still rated "hard" or "very hard" to read, I tried to break down each sentence by explaining all scientific terms logically. I ended up using the hemingway editor for all of the sections I added, and it improved the readability substantially. Thank you. MedicalWiki123 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENV H 453 Industrial Hygiene
— Assignment last updated by Fgarc (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)