ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2023
Impact of Noise Level on the Accuracy of Automated Measurement of CT Number Linearity on ACR CT and Computational Phantoms.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and Agreement of Quantitative Pulmonary Imaging Biomarkers Between Ultra-Low-Dose and Low-Dose Chest CT: A Paired Intra-Individual Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated Task-Transfer Function Measurement for CT Image Quality Assessment Based on AAPM TG 233.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- The Dose Optimization and Evaluation of Image Quality in the Adult Brain Protocols of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography: A Phantom Study.Journal of imaging · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods for segmentation, i.e., Full-segmentation (FS) and Segmentation-rotation (SR), are proposed for maintaining Computed Tomography (CT) number linearity. However, their effectiveness has not yet been tested against noise. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of noise on the accuracy of CT number linearity of the FS and SR methods on American College of Radiology (ACR) CT and computational phantoms. Material and Methods: This experimental study utilized two phantoms, ACR CT and computational phantoms. An ACR CT phantom was scanned by a 128-slice CT scanner with various tube currents from 80 to 200 mA to acquire various noises, with other constant parameters. The computational phantom was added by different Gaussian noises between 20 and 120 Hounsfield Units (HU). The CT number linearity was measured by the FS and SR methods, and the accuracy of CT number linearity was computed on two phantoms. Results: The two methods successfully segmented both phantoms at low noise, i.e., less than 60 HU. However, segmentation and measurement of CT number linearity are not accurate on a computational phantom using the FS method for more than 60-HU noise. The SR method is still accurate up to 120 HU of noise. Conclusion: The SR method outperformed the FS method to measure the CT number linearity due to its endurance in extreme noise.
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.