ArticleMedical physics2026
Impact of CT dose on AI performance: A comparison of radiomics, deep, and foundation models in a multicentric anthropomorphic phantom study.
Article in Medical physics, 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.
- Harmonization in magnetic resonance imaging: A survey of acquisition, image-level, and feature-level methods.Medical image analysis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) is widely used in clinical practice due to its ability to provide detailed anatomical information. However, variations in radiation dose can affect image quality, potentially compromising the performance and reliability of artificial intelligence (AI) models applied to these images. PURPOSE: To evaluate the robustness of radiomics-based and deep learning-based models to variations in CT dose levels using a standardized dataset obtained from a 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom simulating liver tissue with anomalies, as well as in the publicly available dataset CT-ORG with real patient data for organ classification. This study is in an early experimental stage, tested only on retrospective data.
methodsA total of 1378 image series from 649 scans were acquired across 13 scanners from four manufacturers at five dose levels. Features were extracted from six regions of interest (ROIs), representing four liver tissue types (normal, cyst, hemangioma, metastasis), using four methods: PyRadiomics, a shallow convolutional neural network (CNN), SwinUNETR, and a CT foundation model (CT-FM). Feature stability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) was employed to evaluate tissue types separability and the influence of scanner variations. Generalizability was tested by training liver tissue classifiers on one dose level and testing on others, alongside a dose classification task (10-fold cross-validation) to determine the sensitivity of each method to dose variations. In addition, we compared the four methods in addressing the task of organ classification (10-fold cross-validation) with the CT-ORG dataset containing 140 CT scans acquired with varying dose levels.
resultsRadiomic features showed limited robustness to dose variations, leading to reduced performance in liver tissue classification and the lowest ICC among methods (ICC: 0.8355
conclusionsThe study highlights the limited robustness of traditional radiomics and deep models to CT dose variation and underscores the potential of foundation models like CT-FM to enable robust clinical applications by mitigating dose-related variability. This enhanced performance is likely due to the model's pretraining on large and diverse datasets, allowing it to learn robust and generalizable representations across varying acquisition conditions.
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.