ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021
In-vivo X-ray dark-field computed tomography for the detection of radiation-induced lung damage in mice.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of longitudinal in vivo monitoring of pulmonary disease progression in mouse models using laboratory-based x-ray dark-field CT.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Lung volume assessment for mean dark-field coefficient calculation using different determination methods.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Dark-field chest radiography signal characteristics in inspiration and expiration in healthy and emphysematous subjects.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Grating-based x-ray dark-field CT for lung cancer diagnosis in mice.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Comparison of dark-field chest radiography and CT for the assessment of COVID-19 pneumonia.Frontiers in radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Computed Tomography Imaging in ILD: New Trends for the Clinician.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRadiotherapy of thoracic tumours can lead to side effects in the lung, which may benefit from early diagnosis. We investigated the potential of X-ray dark-field computed tomography by a proof-of-principle murine study in a clinically relevant radiotherapeutic setting aiming at the detection of radiation-induced lung damage. MATERIAL AND
methodsSix mice were irradiated with 20 Gy to the entire right lung. Together with five unirradiated control mice, they were imaged using computed tomography with absorption and dark-field contrast before and 16 weeks post irradiation. Mean pixel values for the right and left lung were calculated for both contrasts, and the right-to-left-ratio R of these means was compared. Radiologists also assessed the tomograms acquired 16 weeks post irradiation. Sensitivity, specificity, inter- and intra-reader accuracy were evaluated.
resultsIn absorption contrast the group-average of R showed no increase in the control group and increased by 7% (p = 0.005) in the irradiated group. In dark-field contrast, it increased by 2% in the control group and by 14% (p = 0.005) in the irradiated group. Specificity was 100% for both contrasts but sensitivity was almost four times higher using dark-field tomography. Two cases were missed by absorption tomography but were detected by dark-field tomography.
conclusionsThe applicability of X-ray dark-field computed tomography for the detection of radiation-induced lung damage was demonstrated in a pre-clinical mouse model. The presented results illustrate the differences between dark-field and absorption contrast and show that dark-field tomography could be advantageous in future clinical settings.
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.