ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Quality control of opportunistic multi-energy CT bone mineral density quantification.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of bone mineral density (BMD) is crucial for evaluating bone loss in elderly and oncologic patients. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) enables noninvasive quantification of patient BMD and can be performed opportunistically during routine CT examinations using either conventional or multi-energy CT (MECT). While both methods are used clinically, MECT can address limitations of conventional CT-based QCT. PURPOSE: This study addresses a critical gap in the literature by systematically evaluating commercially available calibration phantoms for use with MECT, assessing the impact of protocol variations, establishing a calcium-based material decomposition workflow for BMD quantification, validating phantom-derived metrics against patient data, and providing recommendations for integrating quality control (QC) into routine clinical workflows.
methodsFive CT QC phantoms containing bone-approximating materials, including calcium (Phantom A), dipotassium phosphate (Phantom B), hydroxyapatite (Phantom C), and calcium carbonate (Phantoms D and E), were evaluated by determining the dual-energy ratio (DER) of inserts. Phantoms were scanned on two identical dual-source CTs at 90/150Sn and 100/150Sn kVp with dose levels of 10 and 20 mGy. Images were reconstructed using filtered back-projection and iterative reconstruction. Phantom DERs were compared with retrospective vertebral measurements from a 10-patient cohort.
resultsPhantom A provided the most suitable representation of patient data, exhibiting a DER of 1.55 [95%CI:1.54-1.57] at 100/150Sn kVp, compared with 1.44 [95%CI:1.37-1.50] in patients. kVp significantly influenced response, whereas radiation dose and reconstruction approach had minimal effect.
conclusionsPhantom selection is critical for MECT-based QCT, and calcium-based phantoms are well-suited for clinical QC and BMD quantification workflows.
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.