ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026
Bringing light to the reading room.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 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
Background: According to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Technical Standard Guidelines, there is a recommended illuminance level for reading rooms set between 25 and 75 lux. However, these guidelines are based on studies completed in 2007-2009, which predate significant advancements in display technology. No recent study has re-evaluated these lighting conditions, and more specifically, no prior studies have examined the effects of ambient lighting on the detection of intracranial hemorrhage on non-contrast brain CT. Objective: To determine if higher ambient lighting levels (> 400 lux) significantly effects the diagnostic accuracy of board-certified neuroradiologists in detecting intracranial hemorrhage on brain CT, compared with standard low-light reading room conditions (20-70 lux). Methods: Forty-two standard-of-care non-contrast head CT scans (axial acquisitions with coronal/sagittal reformats) from a tertiary-care hospital were selected by two independent neuroradiologists. These neuroradiologists established the presence or absence of intracranial hemorrhage. Four additional board-certified neuroradiologists independently interpreted all cases twice: first in a brightly lit environment (> 400 lux, measured at desktop level) and, after a > 6-month washout period to minimize recognition memory bias, in a standard reading room (20-70 lux). Interpretations were performed on calibrated Barco MDNC-3421 displays using the institutional Fuji PACS. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for each condition and compared using paired two-tailed t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between bright and dark conditions for sensitivity (0.974 vs. 0.974, Conclusion: Increased ambient lighting levels (> 400 lux) do not significantly affect the ability of board-certified neuroradiologists to accurately detect intracranial hemorrhage on modern high-resolution displays. These findings suggest that current guidelines should be re-evaluated with recent improvements in technology. Larger multi-center studies are warranted to confirm these results across additional pathologies and modalities.
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.