ArticleVeterinary research communications2025
Quantification of the difference in hounsfield units of an electron density phantom between a conventional and standing computed tomography machine.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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.
- Longitudinal, Objective Fan-Beam Computed Tomographic Evaluation of the Distal Third Metacarpal Bone in 31 Non-Lame Showjumpers.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Risk assessment for condylar stress fracture in elite racing Thoroughbreds using standing computed tomography-based virtual mechanical testing.Equine veterinary journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In human CT imaging, opportunistic calculation of bone mineral density (BMD) is used to screen for osteoporosis, where BMD is estimated by Hounsfield Units (HU). There is potential to use HU for estimation of BMD in veterinary imaging. However, HU values can vary between different machines and over time. We undertook a serial measurements study to determine (1) the extent of the difference of the mean HU and noise (HU standard deviation) of eight regions of interest (ROI) of an electron density phantom scanned on two CT machines, a Siemens CT (conventional) machine and the Equina by Asto CT (standing) machine; and (2) to determine if the HU values obtained on each machine differed over time. The mean HU from 30 scans of an electron density phantom were generated from each of the two CT machines (N = 60; conventional and standing). Differences between machines were assessed using a linear mixed effects model. The mean HU of each positive value ROI from the conventional machine was decreased compared with the standing machine (P < 0.001) and the difference was greatest for the denser phantom inserts. A calibration curve equation utilising the four bone-equivalent insert plugs of the phantom, with known calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA) concentration, was generated using linear regression to represent CaHA, and therefore BMD, for the conventional machine (CaHA = -29.58 + 0.98xROI
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.