ArticleMedical physics2025
Sensitivity analysis of key CT simulation parameters and their impact on quality of virtual images.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrials of medical imaging systems using clinical cases are often impractical motivating the use of virtual imaging trials (VITs). To emulate reality, VITs need models of imaging systems, whose realism depends on simulation parameter choice. PURPOSE: To evaluate how simulation parameter choice impacts image quality of virtual Computed Tomography (CT) images.
methodsUtilizing a validated CT simulator (DukeSim, Duke University), a size-variant and an anthropomorphic computational phantom were imaged emulating a clinical scanner (SOMATOM Force, Siemens Healthineers) and adult abdomen protocol. Simulations varied parameters associated with x-ray source, phantom, and detector: source and detector subsampling (1-5, each side), anode heel effect severity (0%-40%), x-ray spectrum shape (± 5 keV effective energy shift), phantom voxel size (0.1-0.5 mm), and detector crosstalk magnitude (0%-50%, per dimension). Simulations were reconstructed employing vendor-specific software (ReconCT, Siemens Healthineers). Sensitivity to parameter choice was assessed using modulation transfer function (MTF, spatial resolution), noise magnitude, noise power spectrum (NPS, noise texture), and mean CT number.
resultsMTF was sensitive to subsampling and crosstalk, with average changes in half-value frequency (f
conclusionSimulation parameter choice impacts virtual CT image quality. Certain parameters exert greater influence and may need extra attention when developing and utilizing VITs.
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.