ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2025
Assessing the Image Quality of Digitally Reconstructed Radiographs from Chest CT.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rising computed tomography (CT) workloads require more efficient image interpretation methods. Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs), generated from CT data, may enhance workflow efficiency by enabling faster radiological assessments. Various techniques exist for generating DRRs. We conducted a pilot study to explore which DRR technique best approaches the image quality of chest X-Rays (CXR). We quantitatively and qualitatively compared four DRR techniques. A retrospective convenience sample of 217 patients who underwent both ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT and CXR was used. Four DRRs were generated per ULDCT, and CheXNet, a neural network trained to detect 14 diseases, was applied to CXRs and DRRs to compute area under the curve (AUC) scores. For qualitative assessment, six radiologists rated the image quality of the four DRRs generated from six ULDCTs on a Likert scale from 1 to 6 ('not diagnostic quality' to 'diagnostic quality') and provided feedback, which was analysed using inductive category development. CheXNet's AUC for CXRs was 0.80, while DRR techniques ranged from 0.75 to 0.82 (p > 0.26). Radiologists rated the diagnostic quality of the DRRs between 3.0 and 3.5 on average. The SoftMip technique scored highest in both the quantitative (AUC = 0.82) and the qualitative (score = 3.5) evaluation. DRRs showed comparable disease detection performance to CXRs, suggesting non-inferiority. However, radiologists expressed concerns about DRR image quality, particularly in terms of resolution, noise, and overall look-and-feel. Addressing these limitations with advanced techniques may further align DRRs with the diagnostic standards of CXRs.
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.