Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26970556›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2016

Diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT): an emerging tool for rapid, high-resolution, 3-D imaging of metazoan soft tissues.

Paul M Gignac, Nathan J Kley, Julia A Clarke, Matthew W Colbert, Ashley C Morhardt, Donald Cerio, Ian N Cost, Philip G Cox, Juan D Daza, Catherine M Early and 13 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
91.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

223 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 536 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Proteomic study for the prediction ofHistochemistry and cell biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Novel Organizational Pattern of the Nasofrontal Complex inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

163 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 15 institutions in 5 countries.

Paul M GignacDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Nathan J KleyDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Julia A ClarkeDepartment of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Matthew W ColbertDepartment of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Ashley C MorhardtDepartment of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
Donald CerioDepartment of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
Ian N CostDepartment of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Philip G CoxDepartment of Archaeology, University of York and Hull York Medical School, York, UK.
Juan D DazaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA.
Catherine M EarlyDepartment of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
M Scott EcholsThe Medical Center for Birds, Oakley, CA, USA.
R Mark HenkelmanDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
A Nele HerdinaDepartment of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5176-7154
Casey M HollidayDepartment of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Zhiheng LiDepartment of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Kristin MahlowMuseum für Naturkunde, Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätforschung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Samer MerchantDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Johannes MüllerMuseum für Naturkunde, Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätforschung an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Courtney P OrsbonDepartment of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Daniel J PaluhDepartment of Biology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA.
Monte L ThiesDepartment of Biological Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA.
Henry P TsaiDepartment of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
Lawrence M WitmerDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA.
Ohio University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · USMuseum für Naturkunde · DESam Houston State University · USUniversity of Missouri · USBrown University · USCollege Station Medical Center · USOklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences · USStony Brook University · USUniversity of Chicago · USUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Utah · USUniversity of Vienna · ATUniversity of York · GBVillanova University · US

Funding

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional Research Training Grant (Parent T32)T32HD007009 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI NANCY B SCHWARTZ · 1985 to 2026
$13.0M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007009NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD009007NSF 1450842NSF 1450850NSF DEB-1457180NSF IOS-0749750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morphologists have historically had to rely on destructive procedures to visualize the three-dimensional (3-D) anatomy of animals. More recently, however, non-destructive techniques have come to the forefront. These include X-ray computed tomography (CT), which has been used most commonly to examine the mineralized, hard-tissue anatomy of living and fossil metazoans. One relatively new and potentially transformative aspect of current CT-based research is the use of chemical agents to render visible, and differentiate between, soft-tissue structures in X-ray images. Specifically, iodine has emerged as one of the most widely used of these contrast agents among animal morphologists due to its ease of handling, cost effectiveness, and differential affinities for major types of soft tissues. The rapid adoption of iodine-based contrast agents has resulted in a proliferation of distinct specimen preparations and scanning parameter choices, as well as an increasing variety of imaging hardware and software preferences. Here we provide a critical review of the recent contributions to iodine-based, contrast-enhanced CT research to enable researchers just beginning to employ contrast enhancement to make sense of this complex new landscape of methodologies. We provide a detailed summary of recent case studies, assess factors that govern success at each step of the specimen storage, preparation, and imaging processes, and make recommendations for standardizing both techniques and reporting practices. Finally, we discuss potential cutting-edge applications of diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT) and the issues that must still be overcome to facilitate the broader adoption of diceCT going forward.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaImaging, Three-DimensionalIodidesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnatomy, ComparativeAnimalsContrast MediaIodidesLugol's solutionalcoholic iodinedestainingLugol's iodineradiographic contrast agentsthree-dimensional imagingX-ray micro-CT scanning

Identifiers

PMID26970556
PMCPMC5341577
OpenAlexW2296094736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.