ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2026
Contrast-specific conversion factor for accurate radiation dose estimation in contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine the contrast-specific conversion factor (cCF) based on the dose differences between non-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in abdominal imaging, with the aim of improving the accuracy of radiation dose estimation in contrast-enhanced examinations. Material and Methods: The study included 33 adult patients who underwent both NECT and CECT. CECT image acquisition commenced 80 s after the start of iodinated contrast medium injection. A Monte Carlo simulation tool was used to estimate the radiation dose delivered to each patient during NECT and CECT. Organ doses for the liver, spleen, and both kidneys were measured using 120-kVp images. The cCF was calculated as the ratio of the organ dose in CECT to that in NECT. The cCF values are dependent on the scan protocol-, CT vendor-, and X-ray photon energy. Results: The mean organ doses during NECT were 10.45 mGy for the liver, 11.19 mGy for the spleen, and 11.47 mGy for both kidneys. During CECT, these values increased to 15.83 mGy, 17.56 mGy, and 20.75 mGy, respectively. The mean cCFs of CECT relative to NECT were 1.52 for the liver, 1.83 for the spleen, and 1.87 for both kidneys. Conclusion: Applying the cCF to NECT-based dose estimates enables more accurate assessment of radiation exposure in CECT examinations.
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.