ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
High Spatial-Resolution Skull Base Imaging With Photon-Counting Computed Tomography and Energy-Integrating Computed Tomography: A Comparative Phantom Study.
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photon-counting CT in head and neck radiology: bridging detector physics and clinical applications.European radiology · 2026Review
- Appropriate dose reduction using photon-counting detector CT for temporal bone imaging: phantom and clinical studies with helical acquisition.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Photon-counting CT in neuroradiology: a comprehensive SWOT analysis.European radiology · 2026Review
- The speed of sound in skull-mimicking digital phantoms depends on the microstructure.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Influence of bone microstructure on ultrasound loss through skull-mimicking digital phantoms.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Clinical applications of portable CT scanners.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Photon counting CT clinical adoption, integration, and workflow.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
abstractPhoton-counting computed tomography (PCCT) offers better high-resolution and noise performance than energy integrating detector (EID) CT. In this work, we compared both technologies for imaging of the temporal bone and skull base. A clinical PCCT system and 3 clinical EID CT scanners were used to image the American College of Radiology image quality phantom using a clinical imaging protocol with matched CTDI vol (CT dose index-volume) of 25 mGy. Images were used to characterize the image quality of each system across a series of high-resolution reconstruction options. Noise was calculated from the noise power spectrum, whereas resolution was quantified with a bone insert by calculating a task transfer function. Images of an anthropomorphic skull phantom and 2 patient cases were examined for visualization of small anatomical structures. Across measured conditions, PCCT had a comparable or smaller average noise magnitude (120 Hounsfield units [HU]) to the EID systems (144-326 HU). Photon-counting CT also had comparable resolution (task transfer function f25 : 1.60 mm -1 ) to the EID systems (1.34-1.77 mm -1 ). Imaging results supported quantitative findings as PCCT more clearly showed the 12-lp/cm bars from the fourth section of the American College of Radiology phantom and better represented the vestibular aqueduct and oval and round windows when compared with the EID scanners. A clinical PCCT system was able to image the temporal bone and skull base with improved spatial resolution and lower noise than clinical EID CT systems at matched dose.
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.