ArticleBiomedical physics & engineering express2020
Sparse-view, short-scan, dedicated cone-beam breast computed tomography: image quality assessment.
Article in Biomedical physics & engineering express, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and performance evaluation of an upright dedicated cone-beam breast CT system.Medical physics · 2026Article
- 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
- Dedicated Cone-Beam Breast CT: Reproducibility of Volumetric Glandular Fraction with Advanced Image Reconstruction Methods.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Dedicated cone-beam breast CT: Data acquisition strategies based on projection angle-dependent normalized glandular dose coefficients.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Breast dosimetry in alternative X-ray-based imaging modalities used in current clinical practices.European journal of radiology · 2022Review
- 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
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of sparse-view acquisition in short-scan trajectories, compared to 360-degrees full-scan acquisition, on image quality measures in dedicated cone-beam breast computed tomography (BCT). Projection data from 30 full-scan (360-degrees; 300 views) BCT exams with calcified lesions were selected from an existing clinical research database. Feldkamp-Davis-Kress (FDK) reconstruction of the full-scan data served as the reference. Projection data corresponding to two short-scan trajectories, 204 and 270-degrees, which correspond to the minimum and maximum angular range achievable in a cone-beam BCT system were selected. Projection data were retrospectively sampled to provide 225, 180, and 168 views for 270-degrees short-scan, and 170 views for 204-degrees short-scan. Short-scans with 180 and 168 views in 270-degrees used non-uniform angular sampling. A fast, iterative, total variation-regularized, statistical reconstruction technique (FIRST) was used for short-scan image reconstruction. Image quality was quantified by variance, signal-difference to noise ratio (SDNR) between adipose and fibroglandular tissues, full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of calcifications in two orthogonal directions, as well as, bias and root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) computed with respect to the reference full-scan FDK reconstruction. The median values of bias (8.6 × 10
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.