ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2023
Analysis of dual-energy mammography subtraction technique for the dose and image quality evaluation using 3D-printed breast phantom.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to quantitatively assess the radiation dose using XR-QA2 and the image quality of the dual-energy subtraction mammography technique on an in-house phantom. The analysis was carried out to investigate the effect of targets/filters on dose value and image quality using an in-house phantom made of PLA + as an object representing compressed breasts. All irradiation parameters were performed in the craniocaudal position with manual mode. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was recorded, followed by the calculation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and modulation transfer function (MTF) for image quality assessment parameters. The results showed that the image quality was accepted at dose levels within the IAEA and BAPETEN tolerance limit for 60 mm equivalent compressed breast using dual-energy mammography. Furthermore, the target/filter (W/Rh) reduced the dose by 1.03 mGy compared to the Mo/Mo and Mo/Rh with an enhancement in image quality. This indicated that the target/filter (W/Rh) combination was optimal due to the image quality improvement obtained with lower MGD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37721685What 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.