ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Megavoltage computed tomography image quality assessment in a modern tomotherapy system: a frequency-domain analysis.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the image quality of iterative (IR) and filtered back-projection (FBP) reconstruction in a modern megavoltage computed tomography (MV-CT) system using frequency-domain methods in both the in-plane and longitudinal directions. MV-CT scans of a Catphan 504 phantom were obtained using various pitch factors (PFs). The in-plane image quality was assessed using a task-based transfer function (TTF) and a noise power spectrum (NPS). The longitudinal characteristics were evaluated using the slice sensitivity profile (SSP) and modulation transfer function (MTF). Finally, the helical artifacts and radiation doses were quantified. The in-plane TTF and NPS for IR were independent of the PF. Compared to FBP, IR provided significant noise reduction (e.g., 73.3% lower NPS at 0.2 mm⁻1) but showed slightly lower TTF for moderate-contrast objects at low frequencies. In contrast, the longitudinal resolution was directly dependent on the PF; specifically, with increasing PF, the effective slice thickness widened from 3.7 mm (Fine) to 6.0 mm (Coarse), and the MTF degraded. This was accompanied by more pronounced helical artifacts as the circularity of the object decreased from 0.95 (PF 1.0) to 0.69 (PF 3.0). The IR provided remarkable noise reduction and improved soft-tissue visualization. However, the disparate behavior of resolution between imaging directions is a key finding: while the in-plane quality is consistent across pitch factors, the longitudinal resolution degrades significantly with a higher pitch. This characteristic has direct implications for the choice of imaging protocol, particularly for high-precision treatments where geometric accuracy is paramount.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41627717What 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.