ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Lung volume assessment for mean dark-field coefficient calculation using different determination methods.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility of longitudinal in vivo monitoring of pulmonary disease progression in mouse models using laboratory-based x-ray dark-field CT.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Comparison of biomechanical assessment between upright and supine inspiratory-expiratory area-detector CT in progressive pulmonary fibrosis.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate lung volume determination is crucial for reliable dark-field imaging. We compared different approaches for the determination of lung volume in mean dark-field coefficient calculation.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis of data prospectively acquired between October 2018 and October 2020, patients at least 18 years of age who underwent chest computed tomography (CT) were screened for study participation. Inclusion criteria were the ability to consent and to stand upright without help. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, lung cancer, pleural effusion, atelectasis, air space disease, ground-glass opacities, and pneumothorax. Lung volume was calculated using four methods: conventional radiography (CR) using shape information; a convolutional neural network (CNN) trained for CR; CT-based volume estimation; and results from pulmonary function testing (PFT). Results were compared using a Student t-test and Spearman ρ correlation statistics.
resultsWe studied 81 participants (51 men, 30 women), aged 64 ± 12 years (mean ± standard deviation). All lung volumes derived from the various methods were different from each other: CR, 7.27 ± 1.64 L; CNN, 4.91 ± 1.05 L; CT, 5.25 ± 1.36 L; PFT, 6.54 L ± 1.52 L; p < 0.001 for all comparisons. A high positive correlation was found for all combinations (p < 0.001 for all), the highest one being between CT and CR (ρ = 0.88) and the lowest one between PFT and CNN (ρ = 0.78).
conclusionLung volume and therefore mean dark-field coefficient calculation is highly dependent on the method used, taking into consideration different positioning and inhalation depths. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study underscores the impact of the method used for lung volume determination. In the context of mean dark-field coefficient calculation, CR-based methods are more desirable because both dark-field images and conventional images are acquired at the same breathing state, and therefore, biases due to differences in inhalation depth are eliminated. KEY POINTS: Lung volume measurements vary significantly between different determination methods. Mean dark-field coefficient calculations require the same method to ensure comparability. Radiography-based methods simplify workflows and minimize biases, making them most suitable.
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.