ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Protocol parameter extraction and centralization framework for comprehensive and in-depth CT protocol review and management.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitating Collaboration Across the Radiology Department by Expanding Access to Real-Time CT Protocols.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Protocol parameter extraction and centralization framework for comprehensive and in-depth CT protocol review and management.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CT protocol management is an arduous task that requires expertise from a variety of radiology professionals, including technologists, radiologists, radiology IT professionals, and medical physicists. Each CT vendor has unique, proprietary protocol file structures, some of which may vary by scanner model, making it difficult to develop a universal framework for distilling technical parameters to a human-readable file format. An ideal solution for CT protocol management is to minimize the work required for parameter extraction by introducing a data format into the workflow that is universal to all CT scanners. In this paper, we report a framework for CT protocol management that converts raw protocol files to an intermediary format before outputting them in a human-readable format for a variety of practical clinical applications, including routine protocol review, protocol version tracking, and cross-protocol comparisons. The framework was developed in Python 3. Technical parameters of interest were determined via collaborative effort between medical physicists and lead technologists. Protocol files were extracted and analyzed from a variety of scanners across our hospital-wide CT fleet, including various systems from Siemens and GE. Protocols were subcategorized based on relevant technical parameters into regular, dual-energy, and cardiac CT protocols. Backend code for technical parameter extraction from raw protocol files to a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format was performed on a per-system basis. Conversion from JSON to a readable output format (MS Excel) was performed identically for all scanners using the universal framework developed and presented in this work. Example results for Siemens and GE scanners are shown, including side-by-side comparisons for protocols with similar clinical indications. In conclusion, our CT protocol management framework may be deployed on any CT system to improve clinical efficiency in protocol review and upkeep.
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.