ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative evaluation of flat-panel volume CT protocols for high-resolution visualization of middle ear anatomy in human skull specimens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The cochlear morphometry compendium: High-resolution synchrotron measurements and normative reference values.Journal of anatomy · 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 evaluates the imaging quality and radiation dose of six flat-panel volume CT protocols with varying technical parameters, including examination time ("Artis Icono" angiography system (Siemens Healthcare AG, Erlangen, Germany): 14s DCT HEAD MICRO CARE (14s I), 14s DCT HEAD MICRO CARE 4 (14s II), 8s DCT HEAD 70kV CARE 1 (8s I), 8s DCT HEAD 70kV CARE 3 (8s II), 4s DCT HEAD CARE FB (4s I), 4s DCT HEAD CARE FB 2 (4s II)) for middle ear visualization in human skull specimens. A scoring system assessed the delineation of 28 anatomical structures, narrowed to eight for detailed evaluation. Protocols 14s I and 8s I achieved the highest image quality, exceeding the clinical threshold. 8s I protocol demonstrated an optimal balance between image quality and radiation safety, adhering to the ALADA principle ("as low as diagnostically acceptable"). While 14s I offered superior detail, it involved higher radiation exposure without substantial further image improvement, indicating a saturation effect. Shorter protocols, such as 4s I, offered radiation-sparing advantages but did not consistently meet clinical image quality standards. Protocol 8s I is recommended as the standard for middle ear imaging, with 4s I as a potential alternative for cases requiring minimized radiation exposure and reduced motion artifact susceptibility.
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.