ArticleResearch square2026
Development and Radiological Evaluation of 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Lung Phantoms: From CT Imaging to 3D Modeling and Material Characterization.
Article in Research square, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This proof-of-concept study evaluates the ability of three-dimensional printed lung phantoms to reproduce subtle pulmonary features relevant to medical imaging. An integrated workflow was developed for the fabrication and evaluation of patient-specific lung phantoms derived from high-resolution computed tomography, with emphasis on ground-glass opacities. De-identified HRCT datasets were segmented to generate both volumetric anthropomorphic lung models and standardized slim coronal phantoms, supporting reproducible imaging evaluation while reducing reliance on repeat clinical scans. The phantoms were fabricated at reduced scale using stereolithography and fused deposition modeling. Radiographic evaluation revealed clear fabrication-dependent imaging behavior. SLA phantoms exhibited smooth, isotropic microstructures and uniform grayscale response, enabling enhanced visualization of peripheral lung regions. In contrast, FDM phantoms demonstrated layered, porous architectures that produced lung-equivalent attenuation and scatter characteristics representative of pulmonary parenchyma. Quantitative grayscale analysis identified systematic differences in attenuation between fabrication methods, reflecting variations in material density and microstructural organization. Slim phantoms provided highly reproducible platforms suitable for quality assurance and quality control applications, whereas anthropomorphic phantoms preserved patient-specific anatomical detail relevant for diagnostic validation and training. Overall, this study demonstrates that phantom geometry and fabrication strategy critically influence radiological performance and provides a flexible framework for future validation and standardized imaging research.
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.