ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Areas of breast tissue covered in cone beam breast CT imaging.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumor-to-Gland Volume Ratio versus Tumor-to-Breast Ratio as Measured on CBBCT: Possible Predictors of Breast-Conserving Surgery.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of cone beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) imaging on covered areas of breast tissue, which is the relation between imaging quality and CT dose were studied. Multi-energy spectrum was used to radiate same-size built-in calcifications and lump breast motifs under the condition of the same number of particles by utilizing the Monte Carlo-based GATE simulation software; breast motif images were restructured by using FBP restructuration algorithm to gain the distribution of radiation dose in the breast motif; radiation dose was calculated and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) to define how quality factor M and dose efficiency η reflect the relations between radiation dose and imaging quality. Based on the comparison of the calcification number, diameter, and the diameter of tumor among head side, foot side, inner side, outer side and rear side, the difference was meaningless in terms of statistics. Based on the comparison between SNR and contrast-to-noise ratio and between dose efficiency η and quality factor M in different areas, the difference was not statistically significant. In conclusion, the imaging quality of CBBCT was good in the head, foot, inner, outer and rear sides of breast, with acceptable CT dose.
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.