ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
A phantom study comparing low-dose CT physical image quality from five different CT scanners.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of image quality and detectability in computed tomography: Inter-laboratory comparison of Fourier-based metrics.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Reproducibility of Three-Dimensional Facial Surface Models Generated from Repeated CT and CBCT Scans: An Ex Vivo Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of image quality in mobile cone-beam CT with dose modulation using automatic exposure control: A phantom study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Characterization of a prototype rapid kilovoltage x-ray image guidance system designed for a linear accelerator radiation therapy unit.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted automatic screening of opportunistic osteoporosis in computed tomography images from different scanners.European radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Radiation Dose and Image Quality in Clinical Routine Protocols from Three Different CT Scanners.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Establishing the effect of computed tomography reconstruction kernels on the measure of bone mineral density in opportunistic osteoporosis screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- An improved method for measuring the hounsfield units of the vertebral body and pedicles in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Deep learning based ultra-low dose fan-beam computed tomography image enhancement algorithm: Feasibility study in image quality for radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Deep learning-enabled detection of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy after cardiac arrest in CT scans: a comparative study of 2D and 3D approaches.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- The Dose Optimization and Evaluation of Image Quality in the Adult Brain Protocols of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography: A Phantom Study.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2023Article
- Applying the AAPM 293 report to estimate the absorbed dose during head computed tomography: using head circumference for rapid dose estimation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- The influence of a deep learning image reconstruction algorithm on the image quality and auto-analysis of pulmonary nodules at ultra-low dose chest CT: a phantom study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Deep-learning image reconstruction for image quality evaluation and accurate bone mineral density measurement on quantitative CT: A phantom-patient study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate the physical image quality of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) on CT scanners from 5 different manufacturers using a phantom model.
methodsCT images derived from a Catphan 500 phantom were acquired using manufacturer-specific iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithms and deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) on CT scanners from 5 different manufacturers and compared using filtered back projection with 2 radiation doses of 0.25 and 0.75 mGy. Image high-contrast spatial resolution and image noise were objectively characterized by modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise power spectrum (NPS). Image high-contrast spatial resolution and image low-contrast detectability were compared directly by visual evaluation. CT number linearity and image uniformity were compared with intergroup differences using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
resultsThe CT number linearity of 4 insert materials were as follows: acrylic (95% CI: 120.35 to 121.27; P=0.134), low-density polyethylene (95% CI: -98.43 to -97.43; P=0.070), air (95% CI: -996.16 to -994.51; P=0.018), and Teflon (95% CI: 984.40 to 986.87; P=0.883). The image uniformity values of GE Healthcare (95% CI: 3.24 to 3.83; P=0.138), Philips (95% CI: 2.62 to 3.70; P=0.299), Siemens (95% CI: 2.10 to 3.59; P=0.054), Minfound (95% CI: 2.35 to 3.65; P=0.589), and Neusoft (95% CI: 2.63 to 3.37; P=0.900) were evaluated and found to be within ±4 Hounsfield units (HU), with a range of 0.99-2.76 HU for standard deviations. There was no statistically significant difference in CT number linearity and image uniformity across the 5 CT scanners under different radiation doses with IR and DLIR algorithms (P>0.05). The resolution level at 10% MTF was 6.98 line-pairs-per-centimeter (lp/cm) on average, which was similar to the subjective evaluation results (mostly up to 7 lp/cm). DLIR at all 3 levels had the highest 50% MTF values among all reconstruction algorithms. For image low-contrast detectability, the minimum diameter of distinguishable contrast holes reached 4 mm at a 0.5% resolution. Increasing the radiation dose and IR strength reduced the image noise and NPS curve peak frequency while improving image low-contrast detectability.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the image quality of CT scanners from 5 different manufacturers in LDCT is comparable and that the CT number linearity is unbiased and can contribute to accurate bone mineral density quantification.
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.