ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Effect of extended field-of-view approaches on the accuracy of stopping power ratio estimation for single-energy computed tomography simulators.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-dose CT for assessing microstructural alterations in Renal Osteodystrophy among uremic patients: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Effect of extended field-of-view approaches on the accuracy of stopping power ratio estimation for single-energy computed tomography simulators.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtended field-of-view (eFOV) methods have been proposed to generate larger demonstration FOVs for computed tomography (CT) simulators with a limited scanning FOV (sFOV) size in order to ensure accurate dose calculation and patient collision avoidance. Although the efficacy of these strategies has been evaluated for photon applications, the effect of stopping power ratio (SPR) estimation on proton therapy has not been studied. This study investigated the effect of an eFOV approach on the accuracy of SPR to water estimation in homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo simulate patient geometries, tissue-equivalent material (TEM) and customized extension phantoms were used. The TEM phantom supported various rod arrangements through predefined holes. Images were reconstructed to three FOV sizes using a commercial eFOV technique. A single-energy CT stoichiometric method was used to generate Hounsfield unit (HU) to SPR (HU-to-SPR) conversion curves for each FOV. To investigate the effect of rod location in the sFOV and eFOV regions, eight TEM rods were placed at off-center distances in the homogeneous phantom and scanned individually. Similarly, 16 TEM rods were placed in the heterogeneous TEM phantom and scanned simultaneously.
resultsThe conversion curves derived from the sFOV and eFOV data were identical. The average SPR differences of soft-tissue, bone, and lung materials for rods placed at various off-center locations were 3.3%, 4.8%, and 39.6%, respectively. In the heterogeneous phantom, the difference was within 1.0% in the absence of extension. However, in the presence of extension, the difference increased to 2.8% for all rods, except for lung materials, whose difference was 4.8%.
conclusionsWhen an eFOV method is used, the SPR variation in phantoms considerably increases for all TEM rods, especially for lung TEM rods. This phenomenon may substantially increase the uncertainty of HU-to-SPR conversion. Therefore, image reconstruction with a standard FOV size is recommended.
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.