Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi–Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation

Mulkens, Tom H., Bellinck, Patrick, Baeyaert, Michel, Ghysen, Dirk, Van Dijck, Xavier, Mussen, Elvier, Venstermans, Caroline, Termote, Jean-Luc·2005·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare dose reduction and image quality achieved with an automatic exposure control system that is based on both angular (x-y axis) and z-axis tube current modulation with dose reduction and image quality achieved with an angular modulation system for multi-detector row computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board, and oral informed consent was obtained. In two groups of 200 patients, five anatomic regions (ie, the thorax, abdomen-pelvis, abdomen-liver, lumbar spine, and cervical spine) were examined with this modulation system and a six-section multi-detector row CT scanner. Data from these patients were compared with data from 200 patients who were examined with an angular modulation system. Dose reduction by means of reduction of the mean effective tube current in 600 examinations, image noise in 200 examinations performed with each modulation system, and subjective image quality scores in 100 examinations per-formed with each modulation system were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: Mean dose reduction for the angular and z-axis tube current modulation system and for the angular modulation system was as follows: thorax, 20% and 14%, respectively; abdomen-liver, 38% and 18%, respectively; abdomen-pelvis, 32% and 26%, respectively; lumbar spine, 37% and 10%, respectively; and cervical spine, 68% and 16%, respectively. These differences were statistically significant (P < .05). There was no significant difference in image noise and mean image quality scores between modulation systems, with the exception of cervical spinal examinations (P < .001 for both), where the examinations with angular modulation resulted in better scores. There is good correlation between the mean effective tube current level and the body mass index of patients with the new modulation system. Correlation was as follows: thorax, 0.77; abdomen-pelvis, 0.83; abdomen-liver, 0.84; lumbar spine, 0.8; and cervical spine, 0.6. This correlation was not observed with the angular modulation system. CONCLUSION: An automatic exposure control mechanism that is based on real-time anatomy-dependent tube current modulation delivers good image quality with a significantly reduced radiation dose.

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.2363041220

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Mulkens, T. H., Bellinck, P., Baeyaert, M., Ghysen, D., Van Dijck, X., Mussen, E., Venstermans, C., & Termote, J.-L.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2005-10
Volume
237
Issue
1
Pages
213-223
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2142102898
Cited by
354
References
2
FWCI
17.38
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: Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi–Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2363041220
The paper
Mulkens, T. H., Bellinck, P., Baeyaert, M., Ghysen, D., Van Dijck, X., Mussen, E., Venstermans, C., & Termote, J.-L. (2005). Use of an Automatic Exposure Control Mechanism for Dose Optimization in Multi–Detector Row CT Examinations: Clinical Evaluation. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041220

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.