ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Evaluating artifact-free four-dimensional computer tomography with 16 cm detector array.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computed tomography for four-dimensional dose calculation: Effect of detector array length.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of volume and helical four-dimensional computed tomography using canon system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluating artifact-free four-dimensional computer tomography with 16 cm detector array.Journal of applied clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate a 16 cm-array axial four-dimensional computer tomography (4DCT) in comparison with a 4 cm-array 4DCT in the presence of respiration irregularity.
methodTen traces of lung tumor motion from CyberKnife treatments were imported to move the lung cylinder, containing a spherical target, of a phantom. Images were acquired for the lung that moved to each of the 10-positions/phases (1) step-wisely by nominal helical scan at each movement (ground truth), (2) continuously by 4D scan with the 16 cm array, and (3) the same with the 4 cm array, involving table shift. Irregularities, consisting of baseline shift and/or amplitude change of the traces in their second periods, affected #3 scan only in its second table position. The full-widths at half maximum of the target in the direction of the motion were determined on the average (Ave) CT, maximum-intensity (Mip) CT, and a phase (MP) CT that is associated with the maximum error, comparing #2 and 3 with #1. Three tumor-shaped targets were also imaged, and overlap ratios of them from #2 and 3 with the targets from #1 were inter-compared. Hounsfield unit (HU)s of the targets were also compared.
resultsThe average difference in the spherical-target length between #2 and #1 was found to be 0.28 ± 0.15 cm on AveCT, 0.00 ± 0.18 cm on MipCT, and 0.07 ± 0.06 cm on MPCT, showing agreement. The average difference between #3 and #1 was 0.34 ± 0.23 cm on AveCT, 0.48 ± 0.31 cm on MipCT, and 0.56 ± 0.50 cm on MPCT, showing disagreement. The overlap ratios were better with #2 than with #3 for all tumor-shaped targets in each phase CT and MipCT, but they were not perfect for #2 due to motion averaging and phase sorting limitations. The differences in HUs were smaller with #2 than with #3, but not fully satisfactory with #2.
conclusion4DCT with the 16 cm array needs to be used to minimize the impact of the irregularity.
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.