ArticleResearch square2026
Evaluation of a CZT-based photon-counting detector CT prototype for low-dose lung cancer screening using patient-specific lung phantoms.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT) is an advanced high-resolution, dose-efficient CT technique that can be beneficial for low-dose lung cancer screening (LCS-LDCT). Objectives: To evaluate the clinical performance of a cadmium-zinc-telluride- (CZT-) based PCCT system for LCS-LDCT using patient-specific 3D-printed lung phantoms, and to compare its image quality and radiomics consistency with a conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EIDCT) system. Methods: Six 3D-printed lung phantoms, derived from patient CT datasets and representing various lesion types (solid, part-solid, and ground-glass), were imaged on PCCT and EIDCT scanners at matched dose levels (1.6 - 20.4 mGy). Quantitative image metrics, Hounsfield unit (HU) accuracy, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), were assessed across dose levels. Radiomic features were extracted for each lesion and analyzed via principal component analysis to quantify feature consistency (within-cluster distance) and lesion type separability. Results: PCCT demonstrated significantly lower image noise and higher CNR compared with EIDCT, particularly at lower dose levels. HU values were consistent across doses for both systems, with reduced variability in PCCT (coefficient of variation < 0.004). Radiomics analysis revealed tighter clustering (reduced within-cluster distances) and comparable lesion type separability between PCCT and EIDCT, indicating enhanced feature stability and lesion differentiation. Qualitative review confirmed superior lesion conspicuity and margin delineation with PCCT. Conclusions: CZT-based PCCT outperforms conventional EIDCT in quantitative and qualitative imaging metrics for LCS-LDCT, enabling superior image quality and radiomics reproducibility at reduced radiation doses. These findings support the clinical translation of PCCT for lung cancer screening and radiomics-based lesion characterization. Clinical Impact: PCCT offers reduced image noise and improved CNR performance, especially at ultra-low doses. PCCT may facilitate further dose reduction without compromising diagnostic accuracy in LCS-LDCT.
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.