ArticleJournal of imaging2025
No Reproducibility, No Progress: Rethinking CT Benchmarking.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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.
- ChestPathCT5-S100: an open real-world chest CT dataset of five common thoracic pathologies with heterogeneous acquisition conditions.GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2026Article
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific progress, yet in X-ray computed tomography (CT) reconstruction, it remains a critical and unresolved challenge. Current benchmarking practices in CT are hampered by the scarcity of openly available datasets, the incomplete or task-specific nature of existing resources, and the lack of transparent implementations of widely used methods and evaluation metrics. As a result, even the fundamental property of reproducibility is frequently violated, undermining objective comparison and slowing methodological progress. In this work, we analyze the systemic limitations of current CT benchmarking, drawing parallels with broader reproducibility issues across scientific domains. We propose an extended data model and formalized schemes for data preparation and quality assessment, designed to improve reproducibility and broaden the applicability of CT datasets across multiple tasks. Building on these schemes, we introduce checklists for dataset construction and quality assessment, offering a foundation for reliable and reproducible benchmarking pipelines. A key aspect of our recommendations is the integration of virtual CT (vCT), which provides highly realistic data and analytically computable phantoms, yet remains underutilized despite its potential to overcome many current barriers. Our work represents a first step toward a methodological framework for reproducible benchmarking in CT. This framework aims to enable transparent, rigorous, and comparable evaluation of reconstruction methods, ultimately supporting their reliable adoption in clinical and industrial applications.
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.