Balancing patients’ benefits and risks in computed tomography: a European Society of Radiology ‘EuroSafe Imaging’ viewpoint - Top-Institutions - MDSpire

Balancing patients’ benefits and risks in computed tomography: a European Society of Radiology ‘EuroSafe Imaging’ viewpoint

  • By

  • John Damilakis

  • Claudio Granata

  • Elmar Kotter

  • Boris Brkljacic

  • August 9, 2025

  • 0 min

Share

Top Institutions in Radiology

Brief introduction explaining scope and methodology.

  • #1

    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

    New York, NY

    Key Differentiators

    • Radiology
    • Oncology
    • Radiation Safety

  • #2

    European Society of Radiology (ESR) / EuroSafe Imaging Initiative
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) / EuroSafe Imaging Initiative

    Vienna, Austria

    Key Differentiators

    • Radiology
    • Radiation Protection
    • Medical Imaging Safety

  • #3

    National Cancer Institute (NCI)
    National Cancer Institute (NCI)

    Bethesda, MD

    Key Differentiators

    • Cancer Epidemiology
    • Radiation Research
    • Public Health

  • #4

    Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)
    Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)

    Philadelphia, PA

    Key Differentiators

    • Pediatric Radiology
    • Radiation Safety
    • Epidemiology

  • #5

    Mayo Clinic
    Mayo Clinic

    Rochester, MN

    Key Differentiators

    • Radiology
    • Medical Physics
    • Radiation Safety

Original Source(s)

Balancing patients’ benefits and risks in computed tomography: a European Society of Radiology ‘EuroSafe Imaging’ viewpoint

  • by John Damilakis, Claudio Granata, Elmar Kotter, Boris Brkljacic

  • August 9, 2025

Related Content

Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from hepatic hemangioma using diffusion-derived vessel density map-based radiomics features

The translational paradox of AI in hepatocellular carcinoma: from algorithmic over-engineering to real-world clinical utility

AI Drafts Cut Radiograph Reporting Time

Prospective cohort study found faster documentation, with no statistically significant difference in peer-reviewed report quality