ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Dose estimation of ultra-low-dose chest CT to different sized adult patients.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05398887 (Utilization and Effectiveness of Ultra-low-dose Chest Computed Tomography Using Innovative CT Denoising Solution Based on Deep Learning Technology), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 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.
Utilization and Effectiveness of Ultra-low-dose Chest Computed Tomography Using Innovative CT Denoising Solution Based on Deep Learning Technology
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in the Transition from Conventional Pelvimetry to Low-Dose Helical CT Pelvimetry.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Interobserver Variability in Manual Versus Semi-Automatic CT Assessments of Small Lung Nodule Diameter and Volume.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Prospective evaluation of deep learning image reconstruction for Lung-RADS and automatic nodule volumetry on ultralow-dose chest CT.PloS one · 2024Article
- Implementation of Individualized Low-Dose Computed Tomography-Guided Hook Wire Localization of Pulmonary Nodules: Feasibility and Safety in the Clinical Setting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Different Lung Parenchyma Quantification Using Dissimilar Segmentation Software: A Multi-Center Study for COVID-19 Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Chest CT scan for the screening of air anomalies at risk of pulmonary barotrauma for the initial medical assessment of fitness to dive in a military population.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Prospective evaluation of thoracic diseases using a compact flat-panel detector spiral computed tomographic scanner.European journal of radiology open · 2022Article
- Value of low-dose and optimized-length computed tomography (CT) scan in CT-guided percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy of pulmonary nodules.Journal of interventional medicine · 2021Article
- Influence of Different Arm Positions in the Localizer Radiograph(s) on Patient Dose during Exposure-Controlled CT Examinations of the Neck to Pelvis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021Article
- Image quality of ultralow-dose chest CT using deep learning techniques: potential superiority of vendor-agnostic post-processing over vendor-specific techniques.European radiology · 2021Article
- Low Dose Chest CT and Lung Ultrasound for the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Quantitative inspiratory-expiratory chest CT to evaluate pulmonary involvement in pediatric hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation patients.Pediatric pulmonology · 2021Review
- Radiation dose reduction considerations and imaging patterns of ground glass opacities in coronavirus: risk of over exposure in computed tomography.La Radiologia medica · 2021Review
- Wide-volume versus helical acquisition in unenhanced chest CT: prospective intra-patient comparison of diagnostic accuracy and radiation dose in an ultra-low-dose setting.European radiology · 2019Article
- Evaluation of a new image reconstruction method for digital breast tomosynthesis: effects on the visibility of breast lesions and breast density.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of patient size on radiation dose for standard CT (SD-CT), ultra-low-dose CT (ULD-CT) and two-view digital radiography (DR).
methodsDosimeters were distributed within the lungs of chest phantoms representing males of 65 kg and 82 kg (body mass indices 23 and 29). In contrast to SD-CT and DR which include automatic exposure control (AEC), the ULD scan employs a fixed mAs value. The phantoms were exposed to SD, ULD and DR while recording lung doses. Projected dose data were calculated from the phantoms. The resulting exposure settings were used in Monte Carlo programs to determine the effective dose for a standard-sized (BMI 24.2) adult male (170 cm/70 kg) and female (160 cm/59 kg). Patients previously examined by both ULD- and SD-CT were identified to determine post hoc size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs).
resultsULD-CT dose was inversely related to patient size; average lung doses summarised in terms of patient size BMI
conclusionsThe effective doses for a standard-sized male and female examined by ULD-CT are (respectively) ~ 6%/~ 11% of SD-CT and ~ 5/~ 10 times higher than DR. ULD-CT gave a lower radiation dosage to larger patients than DR. AEC is warranted in ULD-CT for improved dose consistency. KEY POINTS: • For standard-sized patients, ULD-CT dose level is ~ 6%/~ 11% of SD-CT, and ~ 5/~ 10 times higher than DR. For larger patients, ULD-CT is currently being used clinically at lower dose levels than DR. • Using ULD-CT should greatly reduce the risk of late effects from ionising radiation. • AEC in ULD-CT is desirable for increased consistency in patient 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.