ArticleCancers2022
Virtual Clinical Trials in 2D and 3D X-ray Breast Imaging and Dosimetry: Comparison of CPU-Based and GPU-Based Monte Carlo Codes.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Comparing energy-integrating detector and photon-counting detector-based breast cone beam CTs for microcalcification detection via Monte Carlo simulation.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Review of GPU-based Monte Carlo simulation platforms for transmission and emission tomography in medicine.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Monte Carlo methods for medical imaging research.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Review
- Air Kerma Calculation in Diagnostic Medical Imaging Devices Using Group Method of Data Handling Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Computational reproductions of medical imaging tests, a form of virtual clinical trials (VCTs), are increasingly being used, particularly in breast imaging research. The accuracy of the computational platform that is used for the imaging and dosimetry simulation processes is a fundamental requirement. Moreover, for practical usage, the imaging simulation computation time should be compatible with the clinical workflow. We compared three different platforms for in-silico X-ray 3D breast imaging: the Agata (University & INFN Napoli) that was based on the Geant4 toolkit and running on a CPU-based server architecture; the XRMC Monte Carlo (University of Cagliari) that was based on the use of variance reduction techniques, running on a CPU hardware; and the Monte Carlo code gCTD (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) running on a single GPU platform with CUDA environment. The tests simulated the irradiation of cylindrical objects as well as anthropomorphic breast phantoms and produced 2D and 3D images and 3D maps of absorbed dose. All the codes showed compatible results in terms of simulated dose maps and imaging values within a maximum discrepancy of 3%. The GPU-based code produced a reduction of the computation time up to factor 10
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.