ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Comparison of breast-level surface dose between single-energy CT and fast kilovoltage-switching dual-energy CT under matched CTDIvol conditions: a chest phantom study.
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. 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.
- Effect of 70-kVp chest CT on surface dose at the mammary gland level in a neonatal phantom under matched CTDIvol conditions.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This phantom study compared breast-level surface dose and image noise between single-energy CT (SECT) and fast kilovoltage-switching dual-energy CT (DECT) under matched volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) conditions. A chest phantom was scanned using a 256-row CT scanner. Surface dose was measured with real-time dosimeters placed on the bilateral anterior chest wall at the breast level and corresponding bilateral posterior positions. Tube currents of 195 mA for SECT and 250 mA for DECT provided matched console-displayed CTDIvol values. Each protocol was repeated 20 times as technical replicates. Image noise was measured in five circular regions of interest at the bilateral anterior and posterior chest walls and heart. Mean surface dose was lower with DECT than SECT at the breast level (15.86 vs. 17.02 mGy; mean difference [DECT minus SECT], -1.16 mGy; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.61; P < 0.001) and posterior surface (15.77 vs. 17.26 mGy; mean difference, -1.49 mGy; 95% CI, -2.21 to -0.77; P < 0.001). Mean image noise was 7.08 HU with DECT and 6.66 HU with SECT, with no statistically significant difference (mean difference, 0.42 HU; 95% CI, -0.17 to 1.01; P = 0.160). Under the tested conditions, DECT showed lower anterior and posterior surface doses than SECT performed without CT automatic exposure control. No statistically significant difference in image noise was observed, but this does not establish equivalent image quality. These findings should not be generalized to clinically optimized SECT protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640536What 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.