ArticleEuropean radiology2019
How accurate and precise are CT based measurements of iodine concentration? A comparison of the minimum detectable concentration difference among single source and dual source dual energy CT in a phantom study.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of quantitative accuracy in 4D DCE-bCT: Insights from a perfusion phantom study.Medical physics · 2026Article
- X-Ray Attenuation Properties of Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Materials for Mimicking Tissues in Radiographic Phantoms Measured by CT from 70 to 140 kV: 2025 Update.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessment of thyroid iodine accumulation following repeated iodinated contrast media administration using dual-energy computed tomography in a rabbit model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Development of a deep learning based approach for multi-material decomposition in spectral CT: a proof of principle in silico study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Spectral CT-based nomogram for evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2025Article
- 3D Printing Materials Mimicking Human Tissues after Uptake of Iodinated Contrast Agents for Anthropomorphic Radiology Phantoms.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Dual-energy computed tomography for evaluating nodal staging in lung adenocarcinoma: correlation with surgical pathology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Protocol selection formalism for minimizing detectable differences in morphological radiomics features of lung lesions in repeated CT acquisitions.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Dual-energy CT improves differentiation of non-hypervascular pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms from CA 19-9-negative pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Accuracy and Precision of Iodine Quantification in Subtracted Micro-Computed Tomography: Effect of Reconstruction and Noise Removal Algorithms.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Article
- Quantitative performance of photon-counting CT at low dose: Virtual monochromatic imaging and iodine quantification.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Quantitative dual-energy CT techniques in the abdomen.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Effect of contrast material injection protocol on first-pass myocardial perfusion assessed by dual-energy dual-layer computed tomography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Detection of left atrial appendage thrombus by dual-energy computed tomography-derived imaging biomarkers in patients with atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Effectiveness of Dual Source Dual Energy Computed Tomography for Benign and Malignant Thyroid Nodules.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Quantification of Minimum Detectable Difference in Radiomics Features Across Lesions and CT Imaging Conditions.Academic radiology · 2021Article
- Multiparametric dual-energy CT to differentiate stage T1 nasopharyngeal carcinoma from benign hyperplasia.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Inter-scan and inter-scanner variation of quantitative dual-energy CT: evaluation with three different scanner types.European radiology · 2021Article
- Use of dual-energy CT for renal mass assessment.European radiology · 2021Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of scan- and patient-related factors on the error and the minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration among different generations of single-source (SS) fast kV-switching and dual-source (DS) dual-energy CT (DECT).
methodsLesions having eight different iodine concentrations (0.2-4 mgI/mL) were emulated in a 3D-printed phantom of medium and large size. Each combination of concentration and size was scanned in dual-energy mode on four different SS and DS DECTs. Radiation doses were 7 and 10 mGy (medium size) and 10, 13, and 16 mGy (large size). Iodine maps were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and vendor-specific iterative reconstruction algorithms (IRs). Absolute error of iodine quantification (E) was measured. Multivariate regression models determined the influence of CT scanner, iodine concentration, phantom size, radiation dose, and reconstruction algorithm on E. The minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration (IC
resultsThe error was significantly lower in current than in previous DECT generations (p < 0.001). For all CT scanner conditions, the error was significantly higher with increasing phantom size and decreasing radiation dose (p < 0.001). Iodine concentration only significantly affected the error for SS DECT (p < 0.001). IC
conclusionsPatient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in iodine concentration within and among SS fast kV-switching and DS DECT. KEY POINTS: • Patient- and scan-related factors have a significant impact on the error and minimum detectable difference in dual-energy CT-based iodine quantification. • Third-generation DECTs outperformed second-generation scanners for both single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT. • The minimum intra- and inter-conditional detectable difference in iodine concentration ranged from 0.4 to 1.5 mg iodine/mL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30276672What 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.