ArticlePediatric radiology2016
Knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction: comparative image quality and radiation dose with a pediatric computed tomography phantom.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptual thresholds for differences in CT noise texture.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Ultra-low-dose computed tomography with deep learning reconstruction for craniosynostosis at radiation doses comparable to skull radiographs: a pilot study.Pediatric radiology · 2023Article
- Deep learning versus iterative image reconstruction algorithm for head CT in trauma.Emergency radiology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of low-contrast detectability for iterative reconstruction in pediatric abdominal computed tomography: a phantom study.Pediatric radiology · 2020Article
- Application of Vendor-Neutral Iterative Reconstruction Technique to Pediatric Abdominal Computed Tomography.Korean journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Impact of knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction on myocardial late iodine enhancement in computed tomography and comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017Article
- 3D printing from cardiovascular CT: a practical guide and review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Review
- Low-dose CT imaging of a total hip arthroplasty phantom using model-based iterative reconstruction and orthopedic metal artifact reduction.Skeletal radiology · 2017Article
- Contrast-Enhanced CT with Knowledge-Based Iterative Model Reconstruction for the Evaluation of Parotid Gland Tumors: A Feasibility Study.Korean journal of radiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCT of pediatric phantoms can provide useful guidance to the optimization of knowledge-based iterative reconstruction CT.
objectiveTo compare radiation dose and image quality of CT images obtained at different radiation doses reconstructed with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction, hybrid iterative reconstruction and filtered back-projection. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe scanned a 5-year anthropomorphic phantom at seven levels of radiation. We then reconstructed CT data with knowledge-based iterative reconstruction (iterative model reconstruction [IMR] levels 1, 2 and 3; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA), hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose(4), levels 3 and 7; Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA) and filtered back-projection. The noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. We evaluated low-contrast resolutions and detectability by low-contrast targets and subjective and objective spatial resolutions by the line pairs and wire.
resultsWith radiation at 100 peak kVp and 100 mAs (3.64 mSv), the relative doses ranged from 5% (0.19 mSv) to 150% (5.46 mSv). Lower noise and higher signal-to-noise, contrast-to-noise and objective spatial resolution were generally achieved in ascending order of filtered back-projection, iDose(4) levels 3 and 7, and IMR levels 1, 2 and 3, at all radiation dose levels. Compared with filtered back-projection at 100% dose, similar noise levels were obtained on IMR level 2 images at 24% dose and iDose(4) level 3 images at 50% dose, respectively. Regarding low-contrast resolution, low-contrast detectability and objective spatial resolution, IMR level 2 images at 24% dose showed comparable image quality with filtered back-projection at 100% dose. Subjective spatial resolution was not greatly affected by reconstruction algorithm.
conclusionReduced-dose IMR obtained at 0.92 mSv (24%) showed similar image quality to routine-dose filtered back-projection obtained at 3.64 mSv (100%), and half-dose iDose(4) obtained at 1.81 mSv.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26546568What 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.