ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
Feasibility of replacing true non-contrast images with virtual non-contrast images in quantitative analysis of emphysema.
Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of virtual non-contrast (VNC) images in comparison with true non-contrast (TNC) images in dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for the assessment of emphysema quantification. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of 57 patients who underwent three-phase chest CT. The VNC images of the arterial phase (VNC(AP)) and venous phase (VNC(VP)) were generated on an AW4.7 workstation. The objective assessment of image noise in TNC and VNC images was conducted through the quantification of image quality, which was then subjected to a double-blind review by two physicians for image quality and visual classification of emphysema. Furthermore, quantified emphysema at three distinct thresholds (950 HU, 930 HU, and 910 HU) using the three sets of images was compared. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the quantitative discrepancies at the -950HU threshold.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in subjective image quality and emphysema visual classification between TNC and VNC images (all p > 0.05). In the quantitative measurement, no statistical difference was observed in image noise or total lung volume among the three groups. When compared with TNC, VNC(VP) images demonstrated no statistical difference in 15th percentile lung density (Perc 15), low attenuation volume (LAV), percentage of low attenuation area (LAA%), and mean lung density (MLD; all p > 0.05). The use of VNC images was found to reduce the radiation dose by 32.6%.
conclusionThe use of VNC, particularly VNC(VP) images, in chest CT has the potential to supplant TNC for the quantitative assessment of emphysema, thereby streamlining scans and reducing radiation dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40341971What 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.