ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Intra-patient variability of iodine quantification across different dual-energy CT platforms: assessment of normalization techniques.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual energy CT of pediatric genitourinary disorders.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Dual-energy computed tomography-derived extracellular volume fraction and spectral quantitative parameters for predicting early recurrence after gastrectomy: insights from a multicenter study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Spectral CT in renal cell carcinoma: the promising role of dual-energy and photon-counting techniques.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Effect of Age and Sex on Normalized Automated DECT-Derived Pulmonary Iodine Concentration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Contrast medium dose optimization in the era of multi-energy CT.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and material density imaging with rapid Kilovoltage-switching DECT for small hyperattenuating renal lesions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Dual-energy CT for predicting serosal invasion in gastric cancer and subtype analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Spectral CT imaging for assessment of metastases in melanoma patients: multi-reader evaluation.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Beyond Conventional CT: Role of Dual-Energy CT in Monitoring Response to Therapy in Abdominal Malignancies.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Review
- Robustness of radiomics among photon-counting detector CT and dual-energy CT systems: a texture phantom study.European radiology · 2025Article
- What to Expect (and What Not) from Dual-Energy CT Imaging Now and in the Future?Journal of imaging · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate intra-patient variability of iodine concentration (IC) between three different dual-energy CT (DECT) platforms and to test different normalization approaches.
methodsForty-four patients who underwent portal venous phase abdominal DECT on a dual-source (dsDECT), a rapid kVp switching (rsDECT), and a dual-layer detector platform (dlDECT) during cancer follow-up were retrospectively included. IC in the liver, pancreas, and kidneys and different normalized ICs (NIC
resultsVariability of IC was highest in the liver (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 28.96 (14.28-46.87) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 29.08 (16.59-62.55) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 22.85 (7.52-33.49) %), and lowest in the kidneys (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 15.76 (7.03-26.1) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 15.67 (8.86-25.56) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 10.92 (4.92-22.79) %). NIC
conclusionsWe found tissue-specific intra-patient variability of IC across different DECT scanner types. Normalization mitigated variability by reducing physiological fluctuations in iodine distribution. After normalization, the scanner type still had a significant effect on iodine variability in the pancreas and liver. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Differences in iodine quantification between dual-energy CT scanners can partly be mitigated by normalization, yet remain relevant for specific tissues and inter-scanner comparisons, which should be taken into account at clinical routine imaging. KEY POINTS: • Iodine concentration showed the least variability between scanner types in the kidneys (range 10.92-15.76%) and highest variability in the liver (range 22.85-29.08%). • Normalizing tissue-specific iodine concentrations against the overall iodine load yielded the greatest reduction of variability between scanner types for 2/3 inter-scanner comparisons in the liver and for all (3/3) inter-scanner comparisons in the kidneys and pancreas, respectively. • However, even after normalization, the dual-energy CT scanner type was found to be the factor significantly influencing variability of iodine concentration in the liver and pancreas.
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.