ArticlePloS one2022
Fully automated image quality evaluation on patient CT: Multi-vendor and multi-reconstruction 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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of image quality and detectability in computed tomography: Inter-laboratory comparison of Fourier-based metrics.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Additional Dose Reduction Potential of Vendor-Agnostic Deep Learning Model: A Phantom Study.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026Article
- Automated contrast-to-noise ratio analysis in chest CT: validation of an open-source segmentation approach.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence improves radiologist workflow and assessment of image quality accuracy.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- A Study of Why We Need to Reassess Full Reference Image Quality Assessment with Medical Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Review
- Objective assessment of diagnostic image quality in CT scans: what radiologists and researchers need to know.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- State-of-the-Art Deep Learning CT Reconstruction Algorithms in Abdominal Imaging.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2024Review
- Left, Then Right Internal Carotid Artery Dissection: A Case Report.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Optimization of the "Perth CT" Protocol for Preoperative Planning and Postoperative Evaluation in Total Knee Arthroplasty.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the recent advancements of computed tomography (CT) technology have contributed in reducing radiation dose and image noise, an objective evaluation of image quality in patient scans has not yet been established. In this study, we present a patient-specific CT image quality evaluation method that includes fully automated measurements of noise level, structure sharpness, and alteration of structure. This study used the CT images of 120 patients from four different CT scanners reconstructed with three types of algorithm: filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific iterative reconstruction (IR), and a vendor-agnostic deep learning model (DLM, ClariCT.AI, ClariPi Inc.). The structure coherence feature (SCF) was used to divide an image into the homogeneous (RH) and structure edge (RS) regions, which in turn were used to localize the regions of interests (ROIs) for subsequent analysis of image quality indices. The noise level was calculated by averaging the standard deviations from five randomly selected ROIs on RH, and the mean SCFs on RS was used to estimate the structure sharpness. The structure alteration was defined by the standard deviation ratio between RS and RH on the subtraction image between FBP and IR or DLM, in which lower structure alterations indicate successful noise reduction without degradation of structure details. The estimated structure sharpness showed a high correlation of 0.793 with manually measured edge slopes. Compared to FBP, IR and DLM showed 34.38% and 51.30% noise reduction, 2.87% and 0.59% lower structure sharpness, and 2.20% and -12.03% structure alteration, respectively, on an average. DLM showed statistically superior performance to IR in all three image quality metrics. This study is expected to contribute to enhance the CT protocol optimization process by allowing a high throughput and quantitative image quality evaluation during the introduction or adjustment of lower-dose CT protocol into routine practice.
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.