ArticleMedical physics2021
Energy-integrating-detector multi-energy CT: Implementation and a phantom study.
Article in Medical physics, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel projection data domain material decomposition method for dual-energy CT and its impact on the accuracy of attenuation values.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Simultaneous dual-contrast imaging using energy-integrating detector multi-energy CT: An in vivo feasibility study.Medical physics · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMulti-energy computed tomography (MECT) has a great potential to enable many novel clinical applications such as simultaneous multi-contrast imaging. The purpose of this study was to implement triple-beam MECT on a traditional energy-integrating-detector (EID) CT platform (EID-MECT).
methodsThis was accomplished by mounting a z-axis split-filter (0.05 mm Au, 0.6 mm Sn) on Tube A of a dual-source EID CT scanner. With the two split x-ray beams from Tube A and the third beam from Tube B, three beams with different x-ray spectra can be simultaneously acquired. With Tube B operated at 70 or 80 kV and Tube A at 120 or 140 kV, four different triple-beam configurations were calibrated for MECT measurements: 70/Au120/Sn120, 80/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 80/Au140/Sn140 kV. Iodine (I), gadolinium (Gd), bismuth (Bi) samples, and their mixtures were prepared for 2 three-material-decomposition tasks and 1 four-material-decomposition task. For each task, samples were placed in a water phantom and scanned using each of the four triple-beam configurations. For comparison, the same phantom was also scanned using three other dual-energy CT (DECT) or MECT technologies: twin-beam DECT (TB-DECT), dual-source DECT (DS-DECT), and photon-counting-detector CT (PCD-CT), all with optimal x-ray spectrum settings and at equal volume CT dose index (CTDIvol). The phantom for four-material decomposition (I/Gd/Bi/Water imaging) was scanned using the PCD-CT only (140 kV with 25, 50, 75, and 90 keV). Image-based material decomposition was performed to acquire material-specific images, on which the mean basis material concentrations and noise levels were measured and compared across all triple-beam configurations in EID-MECT and various DECT/MECT systems.
resultsThe optimal triple-beam configuration was task-dependent with 70/Au120/Sn120, 70/Au140/Sn140, and 70/Au120/Sn120 kV for I/Gd/Water, I/Bi/Water, and I/Gd/Bi/Water material decomposition tasks, respectively. At equal radiation dose level, EID-MECT provided comparable or better quantification accuracy in material-specific images for all three material decomposition tasks, compared to EID-based DECT and PCD-CT systems. In terms of noise level comparison, EID-MECT-derived material-specific images showed lower noise levels than TB-DECT and DS-DECT, but slightly higher than that from PCD-CT in I/Gd/Water imaging. For I/Bi/Water imaging, EID-MECT showed a comparable noise level to DS-DECT, and a much lower noise level than TB-DECT and PCD-CT in all material-specific images. For the four-material decomposition task involving I/Gd/Bi/Water, the bismuth-specific image derived from EID-MECT was slightly noisier, but both iodine- and gadolinium-specific images showed much lower noise levels in comparison to PCD-CT.
conclusionsFor the first time, an EID-based MECT system that can simultaneously acquire three x-ray spectra measurements was implemented on a clinical scanner, which demonstrated comparable or better imaging performance than existing DECT and MECT systems.
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.