Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 159

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CT: Can Radiation Dose Be Decreased While Low-Contrast Detectability Is Preserved?

Schindera, Sebastian T., Odedra, Devang, Raza, Syed Arsalan, Kim, Tae Kyoung, Jang, Hyun-Jung, Szucs-Farkas, Zsolt, Rogalla, Patrik·2013·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the low-contrast detectability and image quality of computed tomography (CT) at different radiation dose levels reconstructed with iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A custom liver phantom with 12 simulated hypoattenuating tumors (diameters of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm; tumor-to-liver contrast values of -10, -20, and -40 HU) was designed. The phantom was scanned with a standard abdominal CT protocol with a volume CT dose index of 21.6 mGy (equivalent 100% dose) and four low-dose protocols (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of the standard protocol dose). CT data sets were reconstructed with IR and FBP. Image noise was measured, and the tumors' contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated. Tumor detection was independently assessed by three radiologists who were blinded to the CT technique used. A total of 840 simulated tumors were presented to the radiologists. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance. RESULTS: IR yielded an image noise reduction of 43.9%-63.9% and a CNR increase of 74.1%-180% compared with FBP at the same dose level (P < .001). The overall sensitivity for tumor detection was 64.7%-85.3% for IR and 66.3%-85.7% for FBP at the 20%-100% doses, respectively. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity for tumor detection between IR and FBP at the same dose level (P = .99). The sensitivity of the protocol at the 20% dose with FBP and IR was significantly lower than that of the protocol at the 100% dose with FBP and IR (P = .019). CONCLUSION: As the radiation dose at CT decreases, the IR algorithm does not preserve the low-contrast detectability. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122349/-/DC1.

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.13122349

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 159

Metadata

Authors
Schindera, S. T., Odedra, D., Raza, S. A., Kim, T. K., Jang, H.-J., Szucs-Farkas, Z., & Rogalla, P.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2013-11
Volume
269
Issue
2
Pages
511-518
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2130746036
Cited by
159
References
1
FWCI
14.74
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: Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CT: Can Radiation Dose Be Decreased While Low-Contrast Detectability Is Preserved? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.13122349
The paper
Schindera, S. T., Odedra, D., Raza, S. A., Kim, T. K., Jang, H.-J., Szucs-Farkas, Z., & Rogalla, P. (2013). Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for CT: Can Radiation Dose Be Decreased While Low-Contrast Detectability Is Preserved? Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13122349

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.