Observational studyRadiology2015
Observer Performance in the Detection and Classification of Malignant Hepatic Nodules and Masses with CT Image-Space Denoising and Iterative Reconstruction.
Observational study in Radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning algorithm for automatic detection of acute ischemic stroke on noncontrast brain CT.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Localization of liver lesions in abdominal CT imaging: I. Correlation of human observer performance between anatomical and uniform backgrounds.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Trial
- Can conclusions drawn from phantom-based image noise assessments be generalized to in vivo studies for the nonlinear model-based iterative reconstruction method?Medical physics · 2016Trial
- The Uncoupling of CT Dose and Noise.Radiology · 2026Article
- Deep learning reconstruction for detection of liver lesions at standard-dose and reduced-dose abdominal CT.European radiology · 2025Article
- Automatic vessel attenuation measurement for quality control of contrast-enhanced CT: Validation on the portal vein.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Model for Detecting Rib Fractures on Chest Radiographs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance of Low-Dose Liver CT with Deep Learning Reconstruction versus Standard-Dose CT.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Milestones in CT: Past, Present, and Future.Radiology · 2023Review
- 75% radiation dose reduction using deep learning reconstruction on low-dose chest CT.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Deep learning based automatic detection algorithm for acute intracranial haemorrhage: a pivotal randomized clinical trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Oncology-specific radiation dose and image noise reference levels in adult abdominal-pelvic CT.Clinical imaging · 2023Article
- Image quality in liver CT: low-dose deep learning vs standard-dose model-based iterative reconstructions.European radiology · 2022Article
- Low-dose CT image and projection dataset.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Observer Performance for Detection of Pulmonary Nodules at Chest CT over a Large Range of Radiation Dose Levels.Radiology · 2020Article
- Undetected Lung Cancer at Posteroanterior Chest Radiography: Potential Role of a Deep Learning-based Detection Algorithm.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2020Article
- Can iterative reconstruction algorithms replace tube loading compensation in low kVp hepatic CT? Subjective versus objective image quality.Acta radiologica open · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Lower-Dose Spiral Head CT for Detection of Intracranial Findings Causing Neurologic Deficits.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning-based Automatic Detection Algorithm for Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis on Chest Radiographs.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019Article
- Can Realistic Liver Tissue Surrogates Accurately Quantify the Impact of Reduced-kV Imaging on Attenuation and Contrast of Parenchyma and Lesions?Academic radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine if lower-dose computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained with adaptive image-based noise reduction (adaptive nonlocal means [ANLM]) or iterative reconstruction (sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction [SAFIRE]) result in reduced observer performance in the detection of malignant hepatic nodules and masses compared with routine-dose scans obtained with filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was approved by the institutional review board and was compliant with HIPAA. Informed consent was obtained from patients for the retrospective use of medical records for research purposes. CT projection data from 33 abdominal and 27 liver or pancreas CT examinations were collected (median volume CT dose index, 13.8 and 24.0 mGy, respectively). Hepatic malignancy was defined by progression or regression or with histopathologic findings. Lower-dose data were created by using a validated noise insertion method (10.4 mGy for abdominal CT and 14.6 mGy for liver or pancreas CT) and images reconstructed with FBP, ANLM, and SAFIRE. Four readers evaluated routine-dose FBP images and all lower-dose images, circumscribing liver lesions and selecting diagnosis. The jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic figure of merit (FOM) was calculated on a per-malignant nodule or per-mass basis. Noninferiority was defined by the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between lower-dose and routine-dose FOMs being less than -0.10.
resultsTwenty-nine patients had 62 malignant hepatic nodules and masses. Estimated FOM differences between lower-dose FBP and lower-dose ANLM versus routine-dose FBP were noninferior (difference: -0.041 [95% CI: -0.090, 0.009] and -0.003 [95% CI: -0.052, 0.047], respectively). In patients with dedicated liver scans, lower-dose ANLM images were noninferior (difference: +0.015 [95% CI: -0.077, 0.106]), whereas lower-dose FBP images were not (difference -0.049 [95% CI: -0.140, 0.043]). In 37 patients with SAFIRE reconstructions, the three lower-dose alternatives were found to be noninferior to the routine-dose FBP.
conclusionAt moderate levels of dose reduction, lower-dose FBP images without ANLM or SAFIRE were noninferior to routine-dose images for abdominal CT but not for liver or pancreas CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.