Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476563›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Comparison of low-contrast detectability between uniform and anatomically realistic phantoms-influences on CT image quality assessment.

Juliane Conzelmann, Ulrich Genske, Arthur Emig, Michael Scheel, Bernd Hamm, Paul Jahnke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Juliane ConzelmannDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrich GenskeDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Arthur EmigDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Michael ScheelDepartment of Neuroradiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Bernd HammDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Paul JahnkeDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. paul.jahnke@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2039-6316

Funding

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie 03EFHBE093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of anatomical phantom structure on task-based image quality assessment compared with a uniform phantom background.

methodsTwo neck phantom types of identical shape were investigated: a uniform type containing 10-mm lesions with 4, 9, 18, 30, and 38 HU contrast to the surrounding area and an anatomically realistic type containing lesions of the same size and location with 10, 18, 30, and 38 HU contrast. Phantom images were acquired at two dose levels (CTDIvol of 1.4 and 5.6 mGy) and reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D). Detection accuracy was evaluated by seven radiologists in a 4-alternative forced choice experiment.

resultsAnatomical phantom structure impaired lesion detection at all lesion contrasts (p < 0.01). Detectability in the anatomical phantom at 30 HU contrast was similar to 9 HU contrast in uniform images (91.1% vs. 89.5%). Detection accuracy decreased from 83.6% at 5.6 mGy to 55.4% at 1.4 mGy in uniform FBP images (p < 0.001), whereas AIDR 3D preserved detectability at 1.4 mGy (80.7% vs. 85% at 5.6 mGy, p = 0.375) and was superior to FBP (p < 0.001). In the assessment of anatomical images, superiority of AIDR 3D was not confirmed and dose reduction moderately affected detectability (74.6% vs. 68.2%, p = 0.027 for FBP and 81.1% vs. 73%, p = 0.018 for AIDR 3D).

conclusionsA lesion contrast increase from 9 to 30 HU is necessary for similar detectability in anatomical and uniform neck phantom images. Anatomical phantom structure influences task-based assessment of iterative reconstruction and dose effects. KEY POINTS: • A lesion contrast increase from 9 to 30 HU is necessary for similar low-contrast detectability in anatomical and uniform neck phantom images. • Phantom background structure influences task-based assessment of iterative reconstruction and dose effects. • Transferability of CT assessment to clinical imaging can be expected to improve as the realism of the test environment increases.

Indexed as

NeckTomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMedical physicsNeckPhantoms, imagingRadiation protectionTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID34476563
PMCPMC8794946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.