ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Temporal subtraction of computed tomography images improves detectability of bone metastases by radiology residents.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent topics in musculoskeletal imaging focused on clinical applications of AI: How should radiologists approach and use AI?La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
- CT temporal subtraction: techniques and clinical applications.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTemporal subtraction of CT (TS) images improves detection of newly developed bone metastases (BM). We sought to determine whether TS improves detection of BM by radiology residents as well.
methodsWe performed an observer study using a previously reported dataset, consisting of 60 oncology patients, each with previous and current CT images. TS images were calculated using in-house software. Four residents independently interpreted twice the 60 sets of CT images, without and with TS. They identified BM by marking suspicious lesions likely to be BM. Lesion-based sensitivity and number of false positives per patient were calculated. Figure-of-merit (FOM) was calculated. Detectability of BM, with and without TS, was compared between radiology residents and board-certified radiologists, as published previously.
resultsFOM of residents significantly improved by implementing TS (p value < 0.0001). Lesion-based sensitivity, false positives per patients, and FOM were 40.8%, 0.121, and 0.657, respectively, without TS, and 58.1%, 0.0958, and 0.796, respectively, with TS. These findings were comparable with the previously published values for board-certified radiologists without TS (58.0%, 0.19, and 0.758, respectively).
conclusionThe detectability of BM by residents improved markedly by implementing TS and reached that of board-certified radiologists without TS. KEY POINTS: • Detectability of bone metastases on CT by residents improved significantly when using temporal subtraction of CT (TS). • Detections by residents with TS and board-certified radiologists without TS were comparable. • TS is useful for residents as it is for board-certified radiologists.
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.