Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737734›Full record

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.

Cherry Kim, Thomas Kwack, Wooil Kim, Jaehyung Cha, Zepa Yang, Hwan Seok Yong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cherry KimDepartment of Radiology, Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi, South Korea.
Thomas KwackDepartment of Radiology, Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4804-3600
Wooil KimDepartment of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9743-7449
Jaehyung ChaMedical Science Research Center, Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi, South Korea.
Zepa YangBiomedical Research Center, Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Hwan Seok YongDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0247-8932
Korea University · KRKorea University Medical Center · KRUniversity of Virginia Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningLung NeoplasmsAlgorithmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID35737734
PMCPMC9223620
OpenAlexW4283376962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.