ArticleScientific reports2025
Validation of a novel 3D-printed anthropomorphic pediatric abdomen phantom using photon-counting CT.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- An in-house fabricated patient-specific pediatric head CT phantom for trauma-oriented emergency imaging: two-scanner validation and expert reader assessment.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Mimicking Tissues in 3D-Printed Radiology Phantoms: Brand, Product, and Color of Printing Filaments Matter!Polymers · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compares objective and subjective image quality (IQ) between a pediatric patient's CT scan and a subsequently 3D-printed anthropomorphic abdomen CT phantom on a photon-counting CT (PCCT). We used a dedicated 3D-printed CT phantom based on DICOM data obtained from a PCCT scan of a 5-year-old boy (70 kV, 458 mAs). We performed two scans on the phantom (1: 70 kV, 461 mAs and 2: 90 kV, 148 mAs), reconstructing them with three kernels. We measured the objective IQ based on mean CT values and image noise within eight target structures. Three radiology experts assessed the subjective IQ on a 5-point Likert scale. The CT values of organs and vessels in phantom scan 1 (Br40) were equivalent to those in the patient (p = 0.019). The phantom demonstrated higher mean CT values for fat and lower CT values for bone. The image noise was equivalent between both scans (p = 0.027). The phantom showed high subjective IQ but a significantly lower rating than the patient (median 4 vs. 5, p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study demonstrates comparable IQ between the phantom and the patient scan at comparable dose parameters. In the future, it may be possible to anticipate radiation exposure in dose reduction 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.