Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30561344›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on medical imaging2019

DukeSim: A Realistic, Rapid, and Scanner-Specific Simulation Framework in Computed Tomography.

Ehsan Abadi, Brian Harrawood, Shobhit Sharma, Anuj Kapadia, William P Segars, Ehsan Samei

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An integrated PET/CT simulation framework for virtual imaging trials and quantitative performance evaluation.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ehsan Abadi
Brian Harrawood
Shobhit Sharma
Anuj Kapadia
William P Segars
Ehsan Samei
Duke University · USDuke Medical Center · US

Funding

Women's Cancer Research ProgramP30CA014236 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DONNA NIEDZWIECKI · 1985 to 2026
$174.8M
Simulation Tools for Dynamic CTR01EB001838 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SAMEI, EHSAN, SEGARS, WILLIAM P · 2005 to 2023
$6.9M
Precision Cardiac CT: Development of a Computational Platform for Optimizing ImagingR01HL131753 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI SAMEI, EHSAN, SEGARS, WILLIAM P · 2017 to 2020
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014236NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL131753NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a CT simulation platform that is: 1) compatible with voxel-based computational phantoms; 2) capable of modeling the geometry and physics of commercial CT scanners; and 3) computationally efficient. Such a simulation platform is designed to enable the virtual evaluation and optimization of CT protocols and parameters for achieving a targeted image quality while reducing radiation dose. Given a voxelized computational phantom and a parameter file describing the desired scanner and protocol, the developed platform DukeSim calculates projection images using a combination of ray-tracing and Monte Carlo techniques. DukeSim includes detailed models for the detector quantum efficiency, quantum and electronic noise, detector crosstalk, subsampling of the detector and focal spot areas, focal spot wobbling, and the bowtie filter. DukeSim was accelerated using GPU computing. The platform was validated using physical and computational versions of a phantom (Mercury phantom). Clinical and simulated CT scans of the phantom were acquired at multiple dose levels using a commercial CT scanner (Somatom Definition Flash; Siemens Healthcare). The real and simulated images were compared in terms of image contrast, noise magnitude, noise texture, and spatial resolution. The relative error between the clinical and simulated images was less than 1.4%, 0.5%, 2.6%, and 3%, for image contrast, noise magnitude, noise texture, and spatial resolution, respectively, demonstrating the high realism of DukeSim. The runtime, dependent on the imaging task and the hardware, was approximately 2-3 minutes per rotation in our study using a computer with 4 GPUs. DukeSim, when combined with realistic human phantoms, provides the necessary toolset with which to perform large-scale and realistic virtual clinical trials in a patient and scanner-specific manner.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationSoftwareAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMonte Carlo MethodPhantoms, ImagingTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID30561344
PMCPMC6598436
OpenAlexW2904574677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.