ArticleMedical physics2025
Comparison of three reconstruction algorithms for low-dose phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast with synchrotron radiation.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomic Characterization of Breast Tissue from Breast CT Images Obtained with Synchrotron Beams.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- On optimisation of Paganin's method for propagation-based X-ray phase-contrast imaging and tomography.Journal of microscopy · 2026Article
- Signal-to-noise and spatial resolution in in-line imaging. 2. Phase-contrast tomography.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2025Article
- Comparison of three reconstruction algorithms for low-dose phase-contrast computed tomography of the breast with synchrotron radiation.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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhase-contrast breast CT imaging holds promise for improved diagnostic accuracy, but an optimal reconstruction algorithm must balance objective image quality metrics with subjective radiologist preferences. PURPOSE: This study systematically compares three reconstruction algorithms-filtered back projection (FBP), unified tomographic reconstruction (UTR), and customized simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (cSART)-to identify the most suitable approach for phase-contrast breast CT imaging.
methodsFresh mastectomy samples were scanned at the Australian synchrotron using monochromatic 32 keV X-rays, a mean glandular dose of 2 mGy, flat-panel detectors with 0.1 mm pixels, and 6-m distance between the rotation stage and the detector. Paganin's phase retrieval method was used in conjunction with all three CT reconstruction algorithms. Objective metrics, including spatial resolution, contrast, signal-to-noise, and contrast-to-noise, were evaluated alongside subjective assessments by seven experienced radiologists. Ratings included perceptible contrast, sharpness, noise, calcification visibility, and overall quality.
resultscSART excelled in objective metrics, outperforming UTR and FBP. However, subjective evaluations favored FBP due to its higher image contrast, revealing a discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments.
conclusionsThe findings highlight the contrast-focused nature of radiologists' subjective assessments and the potential of cSART for delivering superior objective image quality. These insights inform the development of hybrid evaluation tools and guide clinical translation for future live patient imaging studies.
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.