ArticleScientific reports2023
Effectiveness of one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with flat-panel detector in distinguishing between calcified and non-calcified nodules.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep Learning on Misaligned Dual-Energy Chest X-ray Images Using Paired Cycle-Consistent Generative Adversarial Networks.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of algorithmic requirements for clinical application of material decomposition using a multi-layer flat panel detector.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Improvement of lung nodule visibility using one-shot dual-energy subtraction chest radiography with dual-layer flat-panel detector: a phantom study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Single-Exposure, Dual-Energy Subtraction Flat Panel X-Ray Detectors: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of the soft tissue image obtained by the one-shot dual-energy subtraction (DES) method using a flat-panel detector compared with the standard image alone in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs. We evaluated 155 nodules (48 calcified and 107 non-calcified) in 139 patients. Five radiologists (readers 1 - 5) with 26, 14, 8, 6 and 3 years of experience, respectively, evaluated whether the nodules were calcified using chest radiography. CT was used as the gold standard of calcification and non-calcification. Accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between analyses with and without soft tissue images. The misdiagnosis ratio (false positive plus false negative ratios) when nodules and bones overlapped was also examined. The accuracy of all radiologists increased after adding soft tissue images (readers 1 - 5: 89.7% vs. 92.3% [P = 0.206], 83.2% vs. 87.7% [P = 0.178], 79.4% vs. 92.3% [P < 0.001], 77.4% vs. 87.1% [P = 0.007], and 63.2% vs. 83.2% [P < 0.001], respectively). AUCs for all the readers improved, except for reader 2 (readers 1 - 5: 0.927 vs. 0.937 [P = 0.495], 0.853 vs. 0.834 [P = 0.624], 0.825 vs. 0.878 [P = 0.151], 0.808 vs. 0.896 [P < 0.001], and 0.694 vs. 0.846 [P < 0.001], respectively). The misdiagnosis ratio for nodules that overlapped with the bone decreased after adding soft tissue images in all readers (11.5% vs. 7.6% [P = 0.096], 17.6% vs. 12.2% [P = 0.144], 21.4% vs. 7.6% [P < 0.001], 22.1% vs. 14.5% [P = 0.050] and 35.9% vs. 16.0% [P < 0.001], respectively), particularly that of readers 3 - 5. In conclusion, the soft tissue images obtained using one-shot DES with a flat-panel detector have added value in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs, especially for less experienced radiologists.
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.