ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning estimation of effective atomic number for HU to RED calibration in dual energy 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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study introduces a deep learning (DL) approach to improve relative electron density (RED) estimation in dual-energy CT (DECT) through precise effective atomic number (EAN) prediction. A benchtop photon-counting detector CT acquired spectral images of a tissue-equivalent phantom, and a modified U-Net was trained on synthetic data to directly estimate EAN. Predicted EANs were converted to RED using a physics-based model. Performance was assessed on eight materials using mean absolute error (MAE), relative error, and residuals, with results compared to conventional Rutherford and stoichiometric methods. The DL model achieved an MAE of 0.08% for EAN, outperforming Rutherford (1.59%) and stoichiometric (1.54%) approaches. For RED estimation, DL reached a MAE of 0.62%, with residuals ranging from − 0.01 to 0.02 of theoretical values. Calibration analysis showed high linearity for conventional ΔHU-RED curves (R² ≈ 0.9995), but the DL-based method showed slightly higher linearity (R² = 0.9998). Overall, in this phantom study, the DL framework improved RED accuracy and HU–RED linearity compared with analytical methods. By providing a highly linear ΔHU–RED calibration curve in the phantom experiments conducted in this study, it enhances material differentiation and has the potential to support more precise dose calculations in future clinical 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.