ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022
DECT Numbers in Upper Abdominal Organs for Differential Diagnosis: A Feasibility Study.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing two deep learning spectral reconstruction levels for abdominal evaluation using a rapid-kVp-switching dual-energy CT scanner.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating the similarity between two entities such as primary and suspected metastatic lesions using quantitative dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) numbers may be useful. However, the criteria for the similarity between two entities based on DECT numbers remain unclear. We therefore considered the possibility that a similarity in DECT numbers within the same organ could provide suitable standards. Thus, we assumed that the variation in DECT numbers within a single organ is sufficiently minimal to be considered clinically equivalent. Therefore, the purpose of this preliminary study is to investigate the differences in DECT numbers within upper abdominal organs. This retrospective study included 30 patients with data from hepatic protocol DECT scans. DECT numbers of the following parameters were collected: (a, b) 70 and 40 keV CT values, (c) slope, (d) effective Z, and (e, f) iodine and water concentration. The agreement of DECT numbers obtained from two regions of interest in the same organ (liver, spleen, and kidney) were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. The diagnostic ability of each DECT parameter to distinguish between the same or different organs was also assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. The 95% limits of agreement within the same organ exhibited the narrowest value range on delayed phase (DP) CT [(c) -11.2-8.3%, (d) -2.0-1.5%, (e) -11.3-8.4%, and (f) -0.59-0.62%]. The diagnostic ability was notably high when using differences in DECT numbers on portal venous (PVP) and DP images (the area under the curve of DP: 0.987-0.999 in (c)-(f)). Using the variability in DECT numbers in the same organ as a criterion for defining similarity may be helpful in making a differential diagnosis by comparing the DECT numbers of two entities.
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.