ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Quantitative comparison of 68-keV monoenergetic, routine-dose, and low-dose 120-kVp CT for calcium-mimicking inserts in thoracic phantoms: effects of phantom size and reconstruction method.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objective68-keV monoenergetic images from dual-energy CT are often compared with conventional 120-kVp CT, but quantitative performance may depend on phantom size, reconstruction method, and dose settings. We performed a technical phantom-based comparison of 68-keV monoenergetic, routine-dose, and low-dose 120-kVp CT for calcium-mimicking inserts. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this phantom study, a thorax phantom with a cardiac calcification insert was scanned using routine-dose 120-kVp CT, low-dose 120-kVp CT, and dual-energy CT with 68-keV monoenergetic reconstruction. Small- and large-phantom conditions were created without and with an extension ring. Images were reconstructed at 2.5-mm slice thickness using filtered back projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (IR), and deep-learning reconstruction (DL). Mean attenuation, background noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and figure of merit (FOM, CNR²/CTDIvol) were summarized descriptively. Repeated scans and repeated region of interest redraws were not performed.
resultsFor both 5-mm and 3-mm inserts, attenuation generally increased with hydroxyapatite (HA) density. The with-ring condition showed higher background noise and lower CNR. DL showed the most favorable descriptive quantitative results. Under most conditions, 68-keV imaging showed the highest CNR, followed by routine-dose and low-dose 120-kVp CT; however, it was also associated with the highest CTDIvol. When the dose was evaluated using FOM, the differences among the three strategies were smaller.
conclusionIn this technical phantom study, 68-keV monoenergetic imaging showed a descriptively higher CNR than routine-dose and low-dose 120-kVp CT, but this was accompanied by a higher radiation dose. Dose-normalized performance was more comparable across strategies. Findings should be interpreted as descriptive condition-level comparisons rather than statistically tested superiority. KEY POINTS: Question How do 68-keV monoenergetic, routine-dose 120-kVp, and low-dose 120-kVp CT differ in conspicuity and dose-normalized performance for calcium-mimicking targets? Findings 68-keV imaging generally yielded the highest CNR, but also the highest CTDIvol; when dose was considered using FOM, performance differences became smaller. Relevance statement This phantom study provides a technical framework for calcium-focused CT protocol optimization by comparing conspicuity, radiation dose, and dose-normalized performance across monoenergetic and conventional acquisitions.
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.