The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low‐dose CT for the detection and classification of metastatic liver lesions: Results of the 2016 Low Dose CT Grand Challenge
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Using common datasets, to estimate and compare the diagnostic performance of image‐based denoising techniques or iterative reconstruction algorithms for the task of detecting hepatic metastases. Methods: Datasets from contrast‐enhanced CT scans of the liver were provided to participants in an NIH‐, AAPM‐ and Mayo Clinic‐sponsored Low Dose CT Grand Challenge. Training data included full‐dose and quarter‐dose scans of the ACR CT accreditation phantom and 10 patient examinations; both images and projections were provided in the training data. Projection data were supplied in a vendor‐neutral standardized format (DICOM‐CT‐PD). Twenty quarter‐dose patient datasets were provided to each participant for testing the performance of their technique. Images were provided to sites intending to perform denoising in the image domain. Fully preprocessed projection data and statistical noise maps were provided to sites intending to perform iterative reconstruction. Upon return of the denoised or iteratively reconstructed quarter‐dose images, randomized, blinded evaluation of the cases was performed using a Latin Square study design by 11 senior radiology residents or fellows, who marked the locations of identified hepatic metastases. Markings were scored against reference locations of clinically or pathologically demonstrated metastases to determine a per‐lesion normalized score and a per‐case normalized score (a faculty abdominal radiologist established the reference location using clinical and pathological information). Scores increased for correct detections; scores decreased for missed or incorrect detections. The winner for the competition was the entry that produced the highest total score (mean of the per‐lesion and per‐case normalized score). Reader confidence was used to compute a Jackknife alternative free‐response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) figure of merit, which was used for breaking ties. Results: 103 participants from 90 sites and 26 countries registered to participate. Training data were shared with 77 sites that completed the data sharing agreements. Subsequently, 41 sites downloaded the 20 test cases, which included only the 25% dose data (CTDI vol = 3.0 ± 1.8 mG y, SSDE = 3.5 ± 1.3 mG y). 22 sites submitted results for evaluation. One site provided binary images and one site provided images with severe artifacts; cases from these sites were excluded from review and the participants removed from the challenge. The mean (range) per‐lesion and per‐case normalized scores were −24.2% (−75.8%, 3%) and 47% (10%, 70%), respectively. Compared to reader results for commercially reconstructed quarter‐dose images with no noise reduction, 11 of the 20 sites showed a numeric improvement in the mean JAFROC figure of merit. Notably two sites performed comparably to the reader results for full‐dose commercial images. The study was not designed for these comparisons, so wide confidence intervals surrounded these figures of merit and the results should be used only to motivate future testing. Conclusion: Infrastructure and methodology were developed to rapidly estimate observer performance for liver metastasis detection in low‐dose CT examinations of the liver after either image‐based denoising or iterative reconstruction. The results demonstrated large differences in detection and classification performance between noise reduction methods, although the majority of methods provided some improvement in performance relative to the commercial quarter‐dose images with no noise reduction applied.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
(1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,856
Mettler, F. A., Bhargavan, M., Faulkner, K., Gilley, D. B., Gray, J. E., Ibbott, G. S., Lipoti, J. A., Mahesh, M., McCrohan, J. L., Stabin, M. G., et al. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2532082010 · Cited by 853
CT Dose Reduction and Dose Management Tools: Overview of Available Options
McCollough, C. H., Bruesewitz, M. R., & Kofler, J. M. (2006) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.262055138 · Cited by 768
Self-citationDorfman, D. D., Berbaum, K. S., & Metz, C. E. (1992) · PubMed · Cited by 724
DORFMAN, D. D., BERBAUM, K. S., & METZ, C. E. (1992) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015 · Cited by 661
Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective
Yu, L., Liu, X., Leng, S., Kofler, J. M., Ramirez-Giraldo, J. C., Qu, M., Christner, J., Fletcher, J. G., & McCollough, C. H. (2009) · Imaging in Medicine · doi:10.2217/iim.09.5 · Cited by 395
Self-citationObserver studies involving detection and localization: Modeling, analysis, and validation
Chakraborty, D. P., & Berbaum, K. S. (2004) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.1769352 · Cited by 351
Managing Radiation Use in Medical Imaging: A Multifaceted Challenge
Hricak, H., Brenner, D. J., Adelstein, S. J., Frush, D. P., Hall, E. J., Howell, R. W., McCollough, C. H., Mettler, F. A., Pearce, M. S., Suleiman, O. H., et al. (2011) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10101157 · Cited by 342
Self-citationMcCollough, C. H., Chen, G. H., Kalender, W., Leng, S., Samei, E., Taguchi, K., Wang, G., Yu, L., & Pettigrew, R. I. (2012) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.12112265 · Cited by 276
Self-citation
Cited by
Deep learning for tomographic image reconstruction
Wang, G., Ye, J. C., & De Man, B. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-00273-z · Cited by 531
Metadata
- Authors
- McCollough, C. H., Bartley, A. C., Carter, R. E., Chen, B., Drees, T. A., Edwards, P., Holmes, D. R., Huang, A. E., Khan, F., Leng, S., McMillan, K. L., Michalak, G. J., Nunez, K. M., Yu, L., & Fletcher, J. G.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e339-e352
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2762996341
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 7.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Low‐dose CT for the detection and classification of metastatic liver lesions: Results of the 2016 Low Dose CT Grand Challenge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mp.12345
- The paper
- McCollough, C. H., Bartley, A. C., Carter, R. E., Chen, B., Drees, T. A., Edwards, P., Holmes, D. R., Huang, A. E., Khan, F., Leng, S., McMillan, K. L., Michalak, G. J., Nunez, K. M., Yu, L., & Fletcher, J. G. (2017). Low‐dose CT for the detection and classification of metastatic liver lesions: Results of the 2016 Low Dose CT Grand Challenge. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12345
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.