ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Effect of obesity on ability to lower exposure for detection of low-attenuation liver lesions.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the effect of obesity and iterative reconstruction on the ability to reduce exposure by studying the accuracy for detection of low-contrast low-attenuation (LCLA) liver lesions on computed tomography (CT) using a phantom model.
methodsA phantom with four unique LCLA liver lesions (5- to 15-mm spheres, -24 to -6 HU relative to 90-HU background) was scanned without ("thin" phantom) and with ("obese" phantom) a 5-cm thick fat-attenuation ring at 150 mAs (thin phantom) and 450 mAs (obese phantom) standard exposures and at 33% and 67% exposure reductions. Images were reconstructed using standard filtered back projection (FBP) and with iterative reconstruction (Adaptive Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction strength 3, ADMIRE). A noninferiority analysis of lesion detection was performed.
resultsMean area under the curve (AUC) values for lesion detection were significantly higher for the thin phantom than for the obese phantom regardless of exposure level (P < 0.05) for both FBP and ADMIRE. At 33% exposure reduction, AUC was noninferior for both FBP and ADMIRE strength 3 (P < 0.0001). At 67% exposure reduction, AUC remained noninferior for the thin phantom (P < 0.0035), but was no longer noninferior for the obese phantom (P ≥ 0.7353). There were no statistically significant differences in AUC between FBP and ADMIRE at any exposure level for either phantom.
conclusionsAccuracy for lesion detection was not only significantly lower in the obese phantom at all relative exposures, but detection accuracy decreased sooner while reducing the exposure in the obese phantom. There was no significant difference in lesion detection between FBP and ADMIRE at equivalent exposure levels for either phantom.
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.