M. Almalki et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 234 – 241 239
workload management, and enhanced radiation protection protocols is critical to mitigating such risks. Additionally, regular audits of individual dose records can help identify trends and ensure that deviations are promptly addressed. This is consistent with previous studies that have called for improved radiation safety protocols and training for cardiologists( Chambers et al., 2011; Durán et al., 2013). Anesthesiologists experienced the lowest average exposure( 0.62 ± 0.30 mSv), reflecting their relatively limited direct involvement in high-radiation procedures. Nurses and radiologic technologists, radiologists( 0.86 ± 0.26 mSv) may benefit from increased protective measures and distance from radiation sources, as noted in previous studies( Boice et al., 2020; Shubayr et al., 2021).
Comparing the radiation doses across various medical professions in our study with those documented in the existing literature offers a broader context for understanding occupational radiation exposure. This trend aligns with the findings of Dalah et al.( 2018) and Borrego et al.( 2020), who reported that interventional cardiologists often face doses approaching or exceeding ICRP recommended limits, indicating a high-risk profile for this group( Borrego et al., 2020; Dalah et al., 2018). Kartikasari et al. reported even lower mean effective doses for medical staff in Indonesia, with values of 0.047 ± 0.031 mSv, 0.048 ± 0.064 mSv, and 0.043 ± 0.034 mSv for radiologic technologists, nurses, and doctors, respectively( Kartikasari et al., 2020). Elshami et al. also highlighted cardiologists’ higher mean and maximum effective doses in a UAE study, with AMED ranging from 0.38 to 0.62 mSv per worker( Elshami et al., 2020). These findings collectively reinforce the critical need for enhanced radiation protection strategies, especially in high-exposure roles like interventional cardiology.
Chronic radiation exposure affects cancer risk differently in males and females. Sex-specific differences in radiationinduced cancer risks are influenced by a variety of biological, genetic, and hormonal factors( Narendran et al., 2019; Ozasa, 2016). Females generally have a higher baseline risk for certain cancers, such as breast and thyroid cancer, which can be exacerbated by radiation exposure. Genetic predispositions, like mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, and hormonal influences, such as estrogen, contribute to this increased risk. Additionally, differences in DNA repair mechanisms and lifestyle and environmental factors, like smoking rates and occupational hazards, also play a role( Narendran et al., 2019; Ozasa, 2016). Studies have consistently shown that females have a higher risk of developing certain cancers, such as breast, thyroid, and lung cancer, following radiation exposure, indicating a complex interplay of factors that result in differing cancer risks between males and females( Khoramian et al., 2024; Boice et al., 2022; Rodman et al., 2022). Additionally, research on medical diagnostic X-ray workers in Jiangsu, China, revealed that occupational radiation exposure was associated with a significantly increased risk of breast and esophageal cancer, particularly in females( Wang et al., 2015).
The study also revealed gender-based variations in MED- 5Y across the medical professions. female nurses and radiologists reported higher MED-5Y than their male counterparts, with statistically significant differences. This finding suggests potential variations in occupational roles or working conditions between genders, which warrants further investigation. Previous research has also reported gender disparities in radiation exposure, although the reasons for these differences remain unclear( Shore et al., 2018; Mettler et al., 2009). On the contrary, male radiologic technologists experienced slightly higher exposure than females, though this difference was not significant. The results for cardiologists were particularly intriguing, with female cardiologists experiencing lower mean exposure than males. This outcome could be reflective of differing workloads, procedural roles, or adherence to safety protocols, highlighting an area for further investigation.
This study underlines the need for tailored safety protocols and monitoring systems across medical professions, considering the significant variability in radiation exposure. The observed gender-based differences also call for a deeper exploration into the factors contributing to these disparities. Future research should focus on expanding the scope of investigation to include more diverse roles within the medical field, and potentially exploring the impact of technological advancements and changing procedural practices on occupational radiation exposure.
5 Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the patterns of radiation exposure across different medical professions over a five-year period. The AMEDs for most medical professions remained under the established annual occupational dose limit of 20 mSv. However, this limit was exceeded by three cardiologists, although none exceeded the 50 mSv limit for a single year during the five-year period, emphasizing the need for continuous monitoring and the implementation of effective radiation protection measures. The observed gender-based variations in radiation exposure also suggest the need for further research to understand the underlying causes of these differences and to ensure equitable working conditions for all medical professionals. Further information on the age distribution across sexes could also provide an interesting avenue for understanding the observed differences in exposure to ionizing radiation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would also like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Researcher supporting program at King Saud University, Riyadh, for funding this work under the project number( RSP2025R328).
Funding
This study was supported by the Researcher Supporting Program at King Saud University, Riyadh, under project number RSP2025R328.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declares that he has no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.