ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018
Automatic calculation of patient size metrics in computed tomography: What level of computational accuracy do we need?
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A practical slice averaged image method for precise CT size specific dose estimates.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Real-time fully automated dosimetric computation for CT images in the clinical workflow: A feasibility study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- An Improved Method of Automated Noise Measurement System in CT Images.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2021Article
- [Calculation of water equivalent diameter based on anteroposterior localizer CT images].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2020Article
- Size-Specific Dose Estimates of Radiation Based on Body Weight and Body Mass Index for Chest and Abdomen-Pelvic CTs.BioMed research international · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of two different patient size metrics based on water equivalent diameter (D
methodsPatient biometric data (height and weight) were available from a previous survey for 80 adult chest examinations, and 119 adult single-acquisition chest-abdomen-pelvis (CAP) examinations for two 16 slice scanners (GE LightSpeed and Toshiba Aquilion RXL) equipped with automatic tube current modulation (ATCM). D
resultsCTDI
conclusionsD
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.