ArticleMedical physics2023
Technical note: The design and validation of a multi-modality lung phantom.
Article in 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.
- Towards a more realistic anthropomorphic chest phantom using 3D-printed and cork-integrated components.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Deep Indentation Tests of Soft Materials Using Mobile and Stationary Devices.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinically relevant models that enable certain tasks such as calibration of medical imaging devices or techniques, device validation, training healthcare professionals, and more are vital to research throughout the medical field and are referred to as phantoms. Phantoms range in complexity from a vile of water to complex designs that emulate in vivo properties. PURPOSE: Specific phantoms that model the lungs have focused on replication of tissue properties but lack replication of the anatomy. This limits the use across multiple imaging modalities and for device testing when anatomical considerations as well as tissue properties are needed. This work reports a lung phantom design utilizing materials that accurately mimic the ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) properties of in vivo lungs and includes relevant anatomical equivalence.
methodsThe tissue mimicking materials were selected based on published studies of the materials, through qualitative comparisons of the materials with ultrasound imaging, and quantitative MRI relaxation values. A PVC ribcage was used as the structural support. The muscle/fat combined layer and the skin layer were constructed with various types of silicone with graphite powder added as a scattering agent where appropriate. Lung tissue was mimicked with silicone foam. The pleural layer was replicated by the interface between the muscle/fat layer and the lung tissue layer, requiring no additional material.
resultsThe design was validated by accurately mimicking the distinct tissue layers expected with in vivo lung ultrasound while maintaining tissue-mimicking relaxation values in MRI as compared to reported values. Comparisons between the muscle/fat material and in vivo muscle/fat tissue demonstrated a 1.9% difference in T1 relaxation and a 19.8% difference in T2 relaxation.
conclusionsQualitative US and quantitative MRI analysis verified the proposed lung phantom design for accurate modeling of the human lungs.
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.