ArticleJournal of X-ray science and technology2020
Dedicated cone-beam breast CT using laterally-shifted detector geometry: Quantitative analysis of feasibility for clinical translation.
Article in Journal of X-ray science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous reduction of radiation dose and scatter-to-primary ratio using a truncated detector and advanced algorithms for dedicated cone-beam breast CT.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2025Article
- Cone-beam breast CT using an offset detector: effect of detector offset and image reconstruction algorithm.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects.European radiology · 2022Review
- Motion artifacts assessment and correction using optical tracking in synchrotron radiation breast CT.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Radiation dosimetry of a clinical prototype dedicated cone-beam breast CT system with offset detector.Medical physics · 2021Article
- A residual dense network assisted sparse view reconstruction for breast computed tomography.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-resolution, low-noise detectors with minimal dead-space at chest-wall could improve posterior coverage and microcalcification visibility in the dedicated cone-beam breast CT (CBBCT). However, the smaller field-of-view necessitates laterally-shifted detector geometry to enable optimizing the air-gap for x-ray scatter rejection.
objectiveTo evaluate laterally-shifted detector geometry for CBBCT with clinical projection datasets that provide for anatomical structures and lesions.
methodsCBBCT projection datasets (n = 17 breasts) acquired with a 40×30 cm detector (1024×768-pixels, 0.388-mm pixels) were truncated along the fan-angle to emulate 20.3×30 cm, 22.2×30 cm and 24.1×30 cm detector formats and correspond to 20, 120, 220 pixels overlap in conjugate views, respectively. Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) algorithm with 3 different weighting schemes were used for reconstruction. Visual analysis for artifacts and quantitative analysis of root-mean-squared-error (RMSE), absolute difference between truncated and 40×30 cm reconstructions (Diff), and its power spectrum (PSDiff) were performed.
resultsArtifacts were observed for 20.3×30 cm, but not for other formats. The 24.1×30 cm provided the best quantitative results with RMSE and Diff (both in units of μ, cm-1) of 4.39×10-3±1.98×10-3 and 4.95×10-4±1.34×10-4, respectively. The PSDiff (>0.3 cycles/mm) was in the order of 10-14μ2mm3 and was spatial-frequency independent.
conclusionsLaterally-shifted detector CBBCT with at least 220 pixels overlap in conjugate views (24.1×30 cm detector format) provides quantitatively accurate and artifact-free image reconstruction.
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.