Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Abdominal CT: Comparison of Adaptive Statistical Iterative and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction Techniques

Singh, Sarabjeet, Kalra, Mannudeep K., Hsieh, Jiang, Licato, Paul E., Do, Synho, Pien, Homer H., Blake, Michael A.·2010·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare image quality and lesion conspicuity on abdominal computed tomographic (CT) images acquired with different x-ray tube current-time products (50-200 mAs) and reconstructed with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) and filtered back projection (FBP) techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients (mean age, 60.1 years ± 7.3 [standard deviation]; age range, 52.8-67.4 years; mean weight, 78.9 kg ± 18.3; 12 men, 10 women) gave informed consent for this prospective institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study, which involved the acquisition of four additional image series at multidetector CT. Images were acquired at different tube current-time products (200, 150, 100, and 50 mAs) and encompassed an abdominal lesion over a 10-cm scan length. Images were reconstructed separately with FBP and with three levels of ASIR-FBP blending. Two radiologists reviewed FBP and ASIR images for image quality in a blinded and randomized manner. Volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)), dose-length product, patient weight, objective noise, and CT numbers were recorded. Data were analyzed by using analysis of variance and the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: CTDI(vol) values were 16.8, 12.6, 8.4, and 4.2 mGy for 200, 150, 100, and 50 mAs, respectively (P < .001). Subjective noise was graded as below average at 150 mAs and average at 100 and 50 mAs for ASIR images, as compared with FBP images, on which noise was graded as average at 150 mAs, above average at 100 mAs, and unacceptable at 50 mAs. A substantial blotchy image appearance was noted in four of 22 image series acquired at 4.2 mGy with 70% ASIR. Lesion conspicuity was significantly better at 4.2 mGy on ASIR than on FBP images (observed P < .044), and overall diagnostic confidence changed from unacceptable on FBP to acceptable on ASIR images. CONCLUSION: ASIR lowers noise and improves diagnostic confidence in and conspicuity of subtle abdominal lesions at 8.4 mGy when images are reconstructed with 30% ASIR blending and at 4.2 mGy in patients weighing 90 kg or less when images are reconstructed with 50% or 70% ASIR blending.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.10092212

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Singh, S., Kalra, M. K., Hsieh, J., Licato, P. E., Do, S., Pien, H. H., & Blake, M. A.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2010-11
Volume
257
Issue
2
Pages
373-383
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2134471668
Cited by
435
References
17
FWCI
27.48
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: Abdominal CT: Comparison of Adaptive Statistical Iterative and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction Techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.10092212
The paper
Singh, S., Kalra, M. K., Hsieh, J., Licato, P. E., Do, S., Pien, H. H., & Blake, M. A. (2010). Abdominal CT: Comparison of Adaptive Statistical Iterative and Filtered Back Projection Reconstruction Techniques. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092212

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.