ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Value of bone suppression software in chest radiographs for improving image quality and reducing radiation dose.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- GAN-based bone suppression using a combined loss function.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the clinical utility of temporal subtraction using bone suppression processing in digital chest radiography.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Bone Suppression on Chest Radiographs for Pulmonary Nodule Detection: Comparison between a Generative Adversarial Network and Dual-Energy Subtraction.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare image quality and radiation dose between dual-energy subtraction (DES)-based bone suppression images (D-BSIs) and software-based bone suppression images (S-BSIs).
methodsChest radiographs (CXRs) of forty adult patients were obtained with the two X-ray devices, one with DES and one with bone suppression software. Three image quality metrics (relative mean absolute error (RMAE), peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), and structural similarity index (SSIM)) between original CXR and BSI for each of D-BSI and S-SBI groups were calculated for each bone and soft tissue areas. Two readers rated the visual image quality for original CXR and BSI for each of D-BSI and S-SBI groups. The dose area product (DAP) values were recorded. Paired t test was used to compare the image quality and DAP values between D-BSI and S-BSI groups.
resultsIn bone areas, S-BSIs had better SSIM values than D-BSI (94.57 vs. 87.77) but worse RMAE and PSNR values (0.50 vs. 0.20; 20.93 vs. 34.37) (all p < 0.001). In soft tissue areas, S-BSIs had better SSIM values than D-BSI (97.56 vs. 91.42) but similar RMAE and PSNR values (0.29 vs. 0.27; 31.35 vs. 29.87) (all p < 0.001). Both readers gave S-BSIs significantly higher image quality scores than D-BSI (p < 0.001). The mean DAP in software-related images (0.98 dGy·cm
conclusionBone suppression software significantly improved the image quality of bone suppression images with a relatively lower radiation dose, compared with dual-energy subtraction technique. KEY POINTS: • Bone suppression software preserves structure similarity of soft tissues better than dual-energy subtraction technique in bone suppression images. • Bone suppression software achieves superior image quality for lung lesions than dual-energy subtraction technique in bone suppression images. • Bone suppression software can decrease the radiation dose over the hardware-based image processing technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33439320What 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.