ArticleHeliyon2023
Evaluation of the clinical utility of temporal subtraction using bone suppression processing in digital chest radiography.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale and objectives: To evaluate the usefulness of temporal subtraction using the bone suppression method in digital chest radiography for the detection of pulmonary lesions. Materials and methods: The images of 31 patients with pulmonary lesions and 19 normal cases were included in the study. Conventional and bone suppression temporal subtraction were performed in the 50 cases selected and used for an observer performance study. Five radiologists participated in the study, and the differences between using conventional and bone suppression temporal subtraction were assessed using jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: The average figure-of-merit values for all radiologists increased significantly using the bone suppression method, from 0.619 (conventional) to 0.696 (p = 0.032). The average sensitivity for detecting pulmonary lesions improved from 67.9% to 75.4%, and the average number of false-positive per case decreased from 0.336 to 0.252 using bone suppression temporal subtraction. Conclusion: Bone suppression temporal subtraction processing can assist with the detection of subtle pulmonary lesions in digital chest radiographs.
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.