ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Effect of contrast enhancement on diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormality in automatic quantitative CT measurement.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CT quantification of interstitial lung abnormalities: a prospective comparison between supine and prone positions.European radiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of contrast enhancement on the diagnosis of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in automatic quantitative CT measurement in patients with paired pre- and post-contrast scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent chest CT for thoracic surgery between April 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. ILA quantification was performed using deep learning-based automated software. Cases were categorized as ILA or non-ILA according to the Fleischner Society's definition, based on the quantification results or radiologist assessment (reference standard). Measurement variability, agreement, and diagnostic performance between the pre- and post-contrast scans were evaluated.
resultsIn 1134 included patients, post-contrast scans quantified a slightly larger volume of nonfibrotic ILA (mean difference: -0.2%), due to increased ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes (-0.2% and -0.1%), whereas the fibrotic ILA volume remained unchanged (0.0%). ILA was diagnosed in 15 (1.3%), 22 (1.9%), and 40 (3.5%) patients by pre- and post-contrast scans and radiologists, respectively. The agreement between the pre- and post-contrast scans was substantial (κ = 0.75), but both pre-contrast (κ = 0.46) and post-contrast (κ = 0.54) scans demonstrated moderate agreement with the radiologist. The sensitivity for ILA (32.5% vs. 42.5%, p = 0.221) and specificity for non-ILA (99.8% vs. 99.5%, p = 0.248) were comparable between pre- and post-contrast scans. Radiologist's reclassification for equivocal ILA due to unilateral abnormalities increased the sensitivity for ILA (67.5% and 75.0%, respectively) in both pre- and post-contrast scans.
conclusionApplying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance; however, radiologists may need to improve sensitivity reclassifying equivocal ILA. KEY POINTS: Question The effect of contrast enhancement on the automated quantification of interstitial lung abnormality (ILA) remains unknown. Findings Automated quantification measured slightly larger ground-glass opacity and reticulation volumes on post-contrast scans than on pre-contrast scans; however, contrast enhancement did not affect the sensitivity for interstitial lung abnormality. Clinical relevance Applying automated quantification on post-contrast scans appears to be acceptable in terms of agreement and diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40459739What 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.