ArticleJournal of digital imaging2022
Evaluation of Apparent Noise on CT Images Using Moving Average Filters.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of the noise theoretical formula for analyzing noise components on CT images.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Hunting for signal in the noise: identifying robust CT radiomic features across variable scanning settings.European radiology · 2026Article
- Performance of A Statistical-Based Automatic Contrast-to-Noise Ratio Measurement on Images of the ACR CT Phantom.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the effective CNR analysis method for evaluating the contrast resolution of CT images.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to devise a simple method for evaluating the magnitude of texture noise (apparent noise) observed on computed tomography (CT) images scanned at a low radiation dose and reconstructed using iterative reconstruction (IR) and deep learning reconstruction (DLR) algorithms, and to evaluate the apparent noise in CT images reconstructed using the filtered back projection (FBP), IR, and two types of DLR (AiCE Body and AiCE Body Sharp) algorithms. We set a square region of interest (ROI) on CT images of standard- and obese-sized low-contrast phantoms, slid different-sized moving average filters in the ROI vertically and horizontally in steps of 1 pixel, and calculated the standard deviation (SD) of the mean CT values for each filter size. The SD of the mean CT values was fitted with a curve inversely proportional to the filter size, and an apparent noise index was determined from the curve-fitting formula. The apparent noise index of AiCE Body Sharp images for a given mAs value was approximately 58, 23, and 18% lower than that of the FBP, AIDR 3D, and AiCE Body images, respectively. The apparent noise index was considered to reflect noise power spectrum values at lower spatial frequency. Moreover, the apparent noise index was inversely proportional to the square roots of the mAs values. Thus, the apparent noise index could be a useful indicator to quantify and compare texture noise on CT images obtained with different scan parameters and reconstruction algorithms.
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.