ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Quantitative and qualitative lung parameters in photon-counting CT: comparison of ultra-low-dose with standard low-dose protocols.
Article in European 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPhoton-counting CT (PCCT) enables dose reduction beyond energy-integrating CT, but ultra-low-dose acquisitions may impair assessment of airways and lung parenchyma. We evaluated the impact of ultra-low-dose (ULD) PCCT on quantitative and qualitative lung parameters.
methodsIn this prospective study, 101 patients underwent same-session low-dose (LD) and ULD chest CT for mixed indications (CTDIvol, 0.64 ± 0.15 vs. 0.11 ± 0.03 mGy). Automated QCT assessed noise index, airway segmentation, airway wall percentage, emphysema index (EI), mean lung density (MLD), and Percentile15 (Perc15) on soft (Br36u) and lung (Bl64u) kernels. Two readers scored image quality, airways, and emphysema extent using Likert scales.
resultsULD increased noise compared with LD (Bl64u: +94.4%; Br36u: +32.8%) and reduced visual image quality (p < 0.001). Automated airway segmentation decreased (-41.4 mean no. of branches, p < 0.001), with fewer visible airway generations (p < 0.001). Visual bronchial wall thickening did not differ (R1 p = 0.89; R2 p = 0.20). Airway wall percentage showed kernel- and generation-dependent differences: whole-tree values did not differ on Br36u (LD-ULD -0.05%; p = 0.83) but were higher at ULD on Bl64u (LD-ULD -3.33%; p < 0.001), with greater differences peripherally. At ULD, MLD and Perc15 were lower than at LD by 12.5 and 19.9 HU, respectively (both p < 0.001), while EI was 6.2% higher. Visual emphysema assessment shifted toward lower severity at ULD (p < 0.001).
conclusionULD-PCCT enables dose-efficient QCT but introduces limitations: reduced peripheral airway visibility/segmentation with differences in airway wall measurements, biased density-based emphysema quantification, and visual emphysema underestimation at ULD, supporting dose-aware interpretation and further validation of correction strategies. KEY POINTS: Question To study the influence of ultra-low-dose photon-counting chest CT on quantitative and qualitative airway and emphysema assessment compared to low-dose CT. Findings Ultra-low-dose increased noise and reduced peripheral airway segmentation; airway wall metrics showed kernel- and generation-dependent differences, with biased density-based and visual emphysema assessment. Clinical relevance PCCT enables quantitative lung imaging at ultra-low dose, but dose reduction alters airway segmentation and density-based emphysema metrics. ULD-derived QCT therefore requires cautious interpretation and validation of dose-aware correction strategies before routine clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42760429What 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.