You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Correlation of clinical and physical-technical image quality in chest CT: a human cadaver study applied on iterative reconstruction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Imaging, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12880-015-0075-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
An De Crop, Peter Smeets, Tom Van Hoof, Merel Vergauwen, Tom Dewaele, Mathias Van Borsel, Eric Achten, Koenraad Verstraete, Katharina D’Herde, Hubert Thierens, Klaus Bacher |
| Abstract |
The first aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between clinical and physical-technical image quality applied to different strengths of iterative reconstruction in chest CT images using Thiel cadaver acquisitions and Catphan images. The second aim was to determine the potential dose reduction of iterative reconstruction compared to conventional filtered back projection based on different clinical and physical-technical image quality parameters. Clinical image quality was assessed using three Thiel embalmed human cadavers. A Catphan phantom was used to assess physical-technical image quality parameters such as noise, contrast-detail and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Both Catphan and chest Thiel CT images were acquired on a multislice CT scanner at 120 kVp and 0.9 pitch. Six different refmAs settings were applied (12, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 150refmAs) and each scan was reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) algorithms (1,3 and 5 strengths) using a sharp kernel, resulting in 24 image series. Four radiologists assessed the clinical image quality, using a visual grading analysis (VGA) technique based on the European Quality Criteria for Chest CT. Correlation coefficients between clinical and physical-technical image quality varied from 0.88 to 0.92, depending on the selected physical-technical parameter. Depending on the strength of SAFIRE, the potential dose reduction based on noise, CNR and the inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) varied from 14.0 to 67.8 %, 16.0 to 71.5 % and 22.7 to 50.6 % respectively. Potential dose reduction based on clinical image quality varied from 27 to 37.4 %, depending on the strength of SAFIRE. Our results demonstrate that noise assessments in a uniform phantom overestimate the potential dose reduction for the SAFIRE IR algorithm. Since the IQFinv based dose reduction is quite consistent with the clinical based dose reduction, an optimised contrast-detail phantom could improve the use of contrast-detail analysis for image quality assessment in chest CT imaging. In conclusion, one should be cautious to evaluate the performance of CT equipment taking into account only physical-technical parameters as noise and CNR, as this might give an incomplete representation of the actual clinical image quality performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 29% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 6 | 15% |
| Engineering | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,557,505
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#220
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,170
of 268,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.