ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Low-contrast detectability of photon-counting-detector CT at different scan modes and image types in comparison with energy-integrating-detector CT.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A physics primer on photon-counting detectors in CT: Physics, signal formation, and performance.Medical physics · 2026Review
- CT Radiation Dose Reduction With Preserved Diagnostic Performance: How Far Have We Come Over 25 Years?AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026Review
- Clinical benefits and current challenges of photon-counting detector CT in vascular imaging.Radiology advances · 2026Review
- Experimental characterization and mitigation of scatter induced spectral contamination in photon counting CBCT for radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Preserving noise texture through training data curation for deep learning denoising of high-resolution cardiac EID-CT.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: We aim to compare the low-contrast detectability of a clinical whole-body photon-counting-detector (PCD)-CT at different scan modes and image types with an energy-integrating-detector (EID)-CT. Approach: We used a channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) previously optimized for quality control purposes. An American College of Radiology CT accreditation phantom was scanned on both PCD-CT and EID-CT with 10 phantom positionings. For PCD-CT, images were generated using two scan modes, standard resolution (SR) and ultra-high-resolution (UHR); two image types, virtual monochromatic images at 70 keV and low-energy threshold (T3D); both filtered-back-projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR) reconstruction methods; and three reconstruction kernels. For each positioning, three repeated scans were acquired for each scan mode, image type, and CTDIvol of 6, 12, and 24 mGy. For EID-CT, images acquired from scans (10 positionings × 3 repeats × 3 doses) were reconstructed using the closest counterpart FBP and IR kernels. CHO was applied to calculate the index of detectability ( Results: With the smooth Br44 kernel, the Conclusions: The comparison between PCD-CT and EID-CT was significantly influenced by the reconstruction method and kernel. With a smooth kernel that is typically used in low-contrast detection tasks, the PCD-CT demonstrated low-contrast detectability that was comparable to EID-CT with IR and showed no superiority when using FBP. With the use of sharper kernels, the PCD-CT significantly outperformed EID-CT in low-contrast detectability.
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.