ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Dose-report-driven body weight estimation in diagnostic CT using a practical machine learning framework.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In radiology practice, patient body weight is important for contrast media and radiopharmaceutical dosing, radiation dose management, and examination-related workflows, yet it is not consistently available in routine clinical settings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of estimating adult body weight using diagnostic CT dose report metrics across CT systems. This retrospective single-center study included 2496 consecutive adults who underwent diagnostic CT on three scanners. Measured body weight served as the reference standard. LightGBM regression was evaluated in three settings: (1) a baseline model using dose report-derived patient size and exposure metrics, including water-equivalent diameter and sex; (2) an extended model additionally incorporating body region and CT system; and (3) scanner-wise cross-validation to assess cross-scanner generalizability. For settings 1 and 2, data were split into training, validation, and test sets (75%/15%/10%). On the independent test set, the baseline model achieved a mean absolute error of 3.07 kg, with 86.0% of examinations within ± 10% of reference weight. The extended model showed a slight improvement (mean absolute error, 2.83 kg; examinations within ± 10%, 88.8%). In scanner-wise cross-validation, mean absolute error ranged from 3.16 to 4.37 kg. Adult body weight can be estimated with practical accuracy using routinely available diagnostic CT dose-report information in a single-institution, multi-scanner setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42503053What 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.