The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements
Abstract
Theoretical considerations and simulation studies have led to the expectation that patient dose in CT (computed tomography) can be reduced significantly without a concomitant loss in image quality if tube current is modulated according to rotation angle-dependent x-ray attenuation. In this study, the simulation results presented in Part I were validated with phantoms. We used one cylindrical, two oval, and one elliptical phantom, available both as mathematical descriptions and in physical form, to mimic different parts of the human anatomy. Prototype hardware was available to control tube current on a commercial clinical CT scanner. The potential for dose reduction was evaluated for sinusoidal and attenuation-based current modulation for variable modulation amplitudes. Agreement between simulations and measured results was better than within 10%. Dose reduction values of 8%-56% were found depending on the phantom geometry and tube current modulation function. Attenuation-based tube current modulation consistently yielded higher reduction than fixed-shape sinusoidal modulation functions. For the shoulder phantom and 70% modulation amplitude, 44.6% dose reduction was measured as compared to 34.1% for sinusoidal modulation. A maximum of 56% was measured for the shoulder phantom including inserts. Specifying mAs reduction as an estimate for dose reduction proved to be a valid and conservative estimate; measured dose is reduced more strongly than the total mAs product both centrally and on average. First patient studies confirm the results of simulation and phantom studies. We conclude that attenuation-based online tube current control has great potential for reducing patient dose in CT and that it should be made generally available for clinical use.
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
Cited by
Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT
Brenner, D. J., Elliston, C. D., Hall, E. J., & Berdon, W. E. (2001) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289 · Cited by 3,222
Strategies for CT Radiation Dose Optimization
Kalra, M. K., Maher, M. M., Toth, T. L., Hamberg, L. M., Blake, M. A., Shepard, J.-A., & Saini, S. (2004) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2303021726 · Cited by 1,080
Strategies for Reducing Radiation Dose in CT
McCollough, C. H., Primak, A. N., Braun, N., Kofler, J., Yu, L., & Christner, J. (2009) · Radiologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2008.10.006 · Cited by 842
Projection space denoising with bilateral filtering and CT noise modeling for dose reduction in CT
Manduca, A., Yu, L., Trzasko, J. D., Khaylova, N., Kofler, J. M., McCollough, C. M., & Fletcher, J. G. (2009) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.3232004 · Cited by 360
Radiation Dose Modulation Techniques in the Multidetector CT Era: From Basics to Practice
Lee, C. H., Goo, J. M., Ye, H. J., Ye, S.-J., Park, C. M., Chun, E. J., & Im, J.-G. (2008) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.285075075 · Cited by 314
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalender, W. A., Wolf, H., & Suess, C.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2248-2253
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2063887054
- Cited by
- 345
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.598738
- The paper
- Kalender, W. A., Wolf, H., & Suess, C. (1999). Dose reduction in CT by anatomically adapted tube current modulation. II. Phantom measurements. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598738
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.