## 3 Results
### Comparison of Dosimeter Lens Doses  
The eye-lens doses for PET nurses estimated by glass badge are plotted against the eye-lens doses estimated by DOSIRIS over a 6-month period in Figure 2. Linear regression analysis revealed weak correlations between H\({}_{p}\)(10) and H\({}_{p}\)(3) (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.16) and between H\({}_{p}\)(0.07) and H\({}_{p}\)(3) (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.12). The respective R\({}^{2}\) values for the PET and RI RTs were 0.74 and 0.88 (Figure 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Staff**} & **Neck Badge H\({}_{p}\)(10)** & **Neck Badge H\({}_{p}\)(0.07)** & **DOSIRIS H\({}_{p}\)(3)** & **Number of Procedures** & **Injected Dose** \\  & **(mSv/Year)** & **(mSv/Year)** & **(mSv/Year)** & **(/Year)** & **(/Year)** & **(GBq/Year)** \\ \hline PET nurses & \(0.62\pm 0.15\) & \(0.60\pm 0.15\) & \(0.93\pm 0.13\) & 568.00 \(\pm\) 68.24 & 183.40 \(\pm\) 20.58 \\ PET radiographer & \(0.53\pm 0.44\) & \(0.53\pm 0.44\) & \(0.71\pm 0.41\) & 852.00 \(\pm\) 188.40 & 270.44 \(\pm\) 59.38 \\ RI radiographer & \(0.92\pm 0.49\) & \(0.82\pm 0.53\) & \(1.10\pm 0.53\) & 667.20 \(\pm\) 372.90 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Estimated annual eye-lens doses (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Neck Badge H\({}_{p}\)(10)** & **Neck Badge H\({}_{p}\)(0.07)** & **DOSIRIS H\({}_{p}\)(3)** & **Number of Procedures** & **Injected Dose** \\  & **(mSv/Month)** & **(mSv/Month)** & **(mSv/Month)** & **(/Month)** & **(/Month)** & **(GBq/Month)** \\ \hline PET radiographer & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 0.044 \(\pm\) 0.036 & 0.044 \(\pm\) 0.036 & 0.059 \(\pm\) 0.034 & 71.0 \(\pm\) 15.70 & 22.54 \(\pm\) 4.95 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Median & 0.055 & 0.055 & 0.065 & 74 & 24.31 \\  & (IQR) & (0–0.068) & (0–0.068) & (0.035–0.09) & (71.0–80.25) & (21.42–25.12) \\ \hline RI radiographer & Mean \(\pm\) SD & 0.077 \(\pm\) 0.041 & 0.068 \(\pm\) 0.044 & 0.088 \(\pm\) 0.044 & 55.6 \(\pm\) 31.07 & \\ \cline{2-6}  & Median & 0.075 & 0.065 & 0.08 & 59.5 \\  & (IQR) & (0.05–0.11) & (0.05–0.096) & (0.063–0.11) & (24.75–84.25) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Radiation doses of RTs, numbers of procedures performed, and amounts of PET drugs administered to patients each month by PET and RI RTs (Mean \(\pm\) Standard Deviation, Median and IQR). A box plot of the glass badge- and DOSIRIS-estimated doses received over 1 month is shown in Figure 4. H\({}_{p}\)(10) and H\({}_{p}\)(0.07) values were similar, although H\({}_{p}\)(10) was slightly larger and was used in further analyses. The doses for PET nurses, PET RTs, and RI RTs are shown in Figure 4a-c, respectively. [PERSON]'s signed-rank test revealed a significant difference between the estimated doses of the two dosimeters only for PET nurses [_p_ < 0.05]. Relationships of Lens Doses with the Numbers of Procedures Performed and Amounts of PET Drugs Administered to Patients  
Linear regression analysis revealed a significant, positive correlation between H\({}_{p}\)(3) values for PET nurses and the numbers of procedures performed over a 6-month period (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.58; Figure 5). No such significant correlation was observed for PET or RI RTs (Figure 6). Linear regression also revealed a significant, positive correlation between H\({}_{p}\)(3) values for PET nurses and the amounts of PET drugs administered to patients over a 6-month period (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.59; Figure 7). However, no such significant correlation was observed for PET or RI RTs (Figure 8). Figure 3: Correlations between DOSIRIS- and glass badge-estimated lens doses for (a) PET radiology technologists (RTs) and (b) RI RTs. Figure 2: Correlations between DOSIRIS- and glass badge-estimated lens doses for positron emission tomography (PET) nurses. Figure 4: Box plot of DOSIRIS- and glass badge-estimated lens doses to (**a**) PET nurses, (**b**) PET RTs, and (**c**) RI RTs measured over 1 month. Figure 5: Correlation between DOSIRIS-estimated H\({}_{p}\)(3) values and numbers of procedures performed by PET nurses.