ArticleScientific reports2021
Detectability of pulmonary ossifications in fibrotic lung on ultra-high-resolution CT using 2048 matrix size and 0.25-mm slice thickness.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-resolution chest CT using 1024-matrix reconstruction: phantom and clinical evaluation of image quality and post-processing capability.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Radiation Dose Reduction and Image Quality Improvement of UHR CT of the Neck by Novel Deep-learning Image Reconstruction.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Recent trends in scientific research in chest radiology: What to do or not to do? That is the critical question in research.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- A multireader, multicase study comparing ultra-high-resolution and conventional-resolution computed tomography for lung nodule characterization.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2025Article
- Assessment of interstitial lung disease in a systemic sclerosis patient cohort using photon-counting detector CT with ultra-high resolution and a 1024-pixel image matrix.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of deep learning reconstruction on standard to ultra-low-dose high-definition chest CT images.Japanese journal of radiology · 2023Article
- A Pilot Study to Estimate the Impact of High Matrix Image Reconstruction on Chest Computed Tomography.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the prevalence of nodular pulmonary ossifications (POs) in patients with honeycombing on ultra-high-resolution CT (UHRCT) and to compare the detectability of nodular POs between images reconstructed using the ultra-high-resolution setting (UHR-setting) and those using the conventional setting (C-setting) on UHRCT. Twenty patients with honeycombing in the lung were evaluated retrospectively. All patients underwent non-contrast-enhanced UHRCT. Images were reconstructed with UHR-setting (matrix, 2048 × 2048; slice thickness, 0.25 mm) and with C-setting (matrix size, 512 × 512; slice thickness, 0.5 mm). Two chest radiologists independently recorded the number of nodular POs (< 4 mm diameter) in each lung lobes. Each lobe was classified as one of the following five categories according to the number of POs: C0, none; C1, 1-4 POs; C2, 5-9 POs; C3, 10-49 POs; and C4, ≥ 50 POs. The maximum CT values of the POs were measured and compared between the two settings. PO categories were significantly higher with UHR-setting than with C-setting (p < 0.001). Maximum CT values were significantly higher with UHR-setting than with C-setting (p < 0.001). Nodular POs were seen in 80% or more of patients with honeycombing and more easily detected in images reconstructed with UHR-setting than in those with C-setting.
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.