ArticlePloS one2024
Fat quantification in dual-layer detector spectral CT: How to handle iron overload, varying tube voltage and radiation dose Indices.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dual-energy CT liver fat fraction as prognostic imaging biomarker in critically ill patients.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOpposed to other spectral CT techniques, fat quantification in dual-layer detector CT (dlCT) has only recently been developed. The impact of concomitant iron overload and dlCT-specific protocol settings such as the dose right index (DRI), a measure of image noise and tube current, on dlCT fat quantification was unclear. Further, spectral information became newly available <120 kV. Therefore, this study's objective was to evaluate the impact of iron, changing tube voltage, and DRI on dlCT fat quantification. MATERIAL AND
methodsPhantoms with 0 and 8mg/cm3 iron; 0 and 5mg/cm3 iodine; 0, 10, 20, 35, 50, and 100% fat and liver equivalent, respectively, were scanned with a dlCT (CT7500, Philips, the Netherlands) at 100kV/20DRI, 120kV/20DRI, 140kV/20DRI, and at 120kV/16DRI, 120kV/24DRI. Material decomposition was done for fat, liver, and iodine (A1); for fat, liver, and iron (A2); and for fat, liver, and combined reference values of iodine and iron (A3). All scans were analyzed with reference values from 120kV/20DRI. For statistics, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used.
resultsIn phantoms with iron and iodine, results were best for A3 with a mean deviation to phantom fat of 1.3±2.6% (ICC 0.999 [95%-confidence interval 0.996-1]). The standard approach A1 yielded a deviation of -2.5±3.0% (0.998[0.994-0.999]), A2 of 6.1±4.8% (0.991[0.974-0.997]). With A3 and changing tube voltage, the maximal difference between quantified fat and the phantom ground truth occurred at 100kV with 4.6±2.1%. Differences between scans were largest between 100kV and 140kV (2.0%[-7.1-11.2]). The maximal difference of changing DRI occurred between 16 and 24 DRI with 0.4%[-2.2-3.0].
conclusionFor dlCT fat quantification in the presence of iron, material decomposition with combined reference values for iodine and iron delivers the most accurate results. Tube voltage-specific calibration of reference values is advisable while the impact of the DRI on dlCT fat quantification is neglectable.
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.