ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024
Low-dose lung CT: Optimizing diagnostic radiation dose - A phantom study.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Commercial Deep Learning-Based Radiation Dose Optimization Software in Pediatric Radiology: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Overview of dose optimization methods for patient safety in current CT technologies.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Individualized Radiation Dose Assessment in Low-Dose Chest CT: The Role of DLPss and Topogram Optimization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Attenuation-based ultra-low-dose lung computed tomography at 0.1 mSv to 0.3 mSv effective dose in children.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Measurement Errors in Rotational Stitching, One-Shot, and Slot-Scanning Full-Length Radiography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Paediatric high-pitch lung imaging with photon-counting detector computed tomography: a dose reduction phantom study.Pediatric radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: To investigate a quantitative method for assessing image quality of low dose lung computed tomography (CT) and find the lowest exposure dose providing diagnostic images. Methods: Axial volumetric lung CT acquisitions (256 slice scanner) were performed on three different sized anthropomorphic phantoms at different dose levels. The maximum steepness of sigmoid curves fitted to line density profiles was measured at lung-to-pleura interfaces. For each phantom, image sharpness was calculated as the median of 468 measurements from 39 different locations. Diagnostic image quality for the adult and paediatric phantom was rated by three radiologists using 4-point Likert scales. The image sharpness cut-off for obtaining adequate image quality was determined from qualitative ratings. Results: Adequate diagnostic image quality was reached at a median steepness of 713 HU/mm in the adult phantom with a corresponding CTDIvol of 0.14 mGy and an effective dose of 0.13 mSv at a dose level of 100 kVp and 10 mA. In the paediatric phantom diagnostic image quality was reached at a median steepness of 1139 HU/mm with a corresponding CTDIvol of 0.13 mGy and an effective dose of 0.08 mSv at a dose level of 100 kVp and 10 mA. Conclusions: Determination of image sharpness on line density profiles can be used as quantitative measure for image quality of lung CT. Sufficient-quality lung CT can be achieved at effective radiation doses of 0.13 mSv (adult phantom) and 0.08 mSv (paediatric phantom). These findings suggest that substantial dose reduction is feasible without compromising diagnostic accuracy.
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.