ArticleAbdominal imaging2015
Motion artifacts in kidney stone imaging using single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT scanners: a phantom study.
Article in Abdominal imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What you don't see matters: dual-energy CT in emergency radiology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Improving Structure Delineation for Radiation Therapy Planning Using Dual-Energy CT.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has shown the capability of differentiating uric acid (UA) from non-UA stones with 90-100% accuracy. With the invention of dual-source (DS) scanners, both low- and high-energy images are acquired simultaneously. However, DECT can also be performed by sequential acquisition of both images on single-source (SS) scanners. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of motion artifacts on stone classification using both SS-DECT and DS-DECT.
methods114 kidney stones of different types and sizes were imaged on both DS-DECT and SS-DECT scanners with tube voltages of 80 and 140 kVp with and without induced motion. Postprocessing was conducted to create material-specific images from corresponding low- and high-energy images. The dual-energy ratio (DER) and stone material were determined and compared among different scans.
resultsFor the motionless scans, all stones were correctly classified with SS-DECT, while two cystine stones were misclassified with DS-DECT. When motion was induced, 94% of the stones were misclassified with SS-DECT versus 11% with DS-DECT (P < 0.0001). Stone size was not a factor in stone misclassification under motion. Stone type was not a factor in stone misclassification under motion with SS-DECT, although with DS-DECT, cystine showed higher number of stone misclassification.
conclusionsMotion artifacts could result in stone misclassification in DECT. This effect is more pronounced in SS-DECT versus DS-DECT, especially if stones of different types lie in close proximity to each other. Further, possible misinterpretation of the number of stones (i.e., missing one, or thinking that there are two) in DS-DECT could be a potentially significant problem.
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.