ArticleMedical physics2025
Comparing organ and effective dose of various CT localizer acquisition strategies: A Monte Carlo study.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Centring in CT: An International Survey of Clinical Practice and Future Directions.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Prospective estimation of water equivalent diameter and SSDE using 3D landmark CT scans.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of a motion correction software based on partial angle reconstruction in coronary CT angiography.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Influence of Off-Centre Positioning, Scan Direction, and Localiser Projection Angle on Organ-Specific Radiation Doses in Low-Dose Chest CT: A Simulation Study Across Four Scanner Models.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Radiation exposure of young patients with abdominal neuroblastoma from therapeutic and imaging procedures: a phantom study.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Risk-minimizing tube current and tube voltage modulation for CT: A simulation study.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Comparing organ and effective dose of various CT localizer acquisition strategies: A Monte Carlo study.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCT examinations commonly start with the acquisition of one or two localizer radiographs (2D localizers). Recently, a manufacturer introduced the option to perform a heavily filtrated low-dose helical scan as a localizer acquisition. To compare the dose of one or two 2D localizer acquisitions to the dose of a 3D localizer acquisition, one cannot simply compare the CTDIs of the different acquisition techniques, because of the use of different geometries and spectra. PURPOSE: To compare the organ and effective dose for various CT localizer acquisition techniques.
methodsA Geant4-based Monte Carlo simulation, replicating a clinical wide-area CT scanner was developed and validated. Various localizer acquisition strategies were simulated: Anterior-posterior (AP) alone, PA alone, combined AP+lateral (LAT), and PA+LAT 2D localizers, and an Ag-filtered 3D localizer acquisition. Validation was performed by measuring and simulating CTDI
resultsCTDI
conclusionsUsing a PA localizer results in a lower or equivalent organ dose in the most radiosensitive organs, and a lower effective dose compared to an AP localizer for both chest and abdomen+pelvis exams. Compared to a two-localizer strategy, the 3D localizer results in a lower effective dose in both the chest and abdomen+pelvis region.
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.