ArticlePloS one2022
Accuracy of two deep learning-based reconstruction methods compared with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction method for solid and ground-glass nodule volumetry on low-dose and ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography: A phantom study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative and qualitative assessment of ultra-low-dose paranasal sinus CT using deep learning image reconstruction: a comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction.European radiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Vendor-Agnostic Deep Learning Model for Noise Reduction and Image Quality Improvement in Dental CBCT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Imaging diagnostics of pulmonary ground-glass nodules: a narrative review with current status and future directions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Review
- Detection, measurement, and diagnosis of lung nodules by ultra-low-dose CT in lung cancer screening: a systematic review.BJR open · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- 75% radiation dose reduction using deep learning reconstruction on low-dose chest CT.BMC medical imaging · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No published studies have evaluated the accuracy of volumetric measurement of solid nodules and ground-glass nodules on low-dose or ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography, reconstructed using deep learning-based algorithms. This is an important issue in lung cancer screening. Our study aimed to investigate the accuracy of semiautomatic volume measurement of solid nodules and ground-glass nodules, using two deep learning-based image reconstruction algorithms (Truefidelity and ClariCT.AI), compared with iterative reconstruction (ASiR-V) in low-dose and ultra-low-dose settings. We performed computed tomography scans of solid nodules and ground-glass nodules of different diameters placed in a phantom at four radiation doses (120 kVp/220 mA, 120 kVp/90 mA, 120 kVp/40 mA, and 80 kVp/40 mA). Each scan was reconstructed using Truefidelity, ClariCT.AI, and ASiR-V. The solid nodule and ground-glass nodule volumes were measured semiautomatically. The gold-standard volumes could be calculated using the diameter since all nodule phantoms are perfectly spherical. Subsequently, absolute percentage measurement errors of the measured volumes were calculated. Image noise was also calculated. Across all nodules at all dose settings, the absolute percentage measurement errors of Truefidelity and ClariCT.AI were less than 11%; they were significantly lower with Truefidelity or ClariCT.AI than with ASiR-V (all P<0.05). The absolute percentage measurement errors for the smallest solid nodule (3 mm) reconstructed by Truefidelity or ClariCT.AI at all dose settings were significantly lower than those of this nodule reconstructed by ASiR-V (all P<0.05). Furthermore, the lowest absolute percentage measurement errors for ground-glass nodules were observed with Truefidelity or ClariCT.AI at all dose settings. The absolute percentage measurement errors for ground-glass nodules reconstructed with Truefidelity at ultra-low-dose settings were significantly lower than those of all sizes of ground-glass nodules reconstructed with ASiR-V (all P<0.05). Image noise was lowest with Truefidelity (all P<0.05). In conclusion, the deep learning-based algorithms were more accurate for volume measurements of both solid nodules and ground-glass nodules than ASiR-V at both low-dose and ultra-low-dose 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.