Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Differences in CT Perfusion Maps Generated by Different Commercial Software: Quantitative Analysis by Using Identical Source Data of Acute Stroke Patients

Kudo, Kohsuke, Sasaki, Makoto, Yamada, Kei, Momoshima, Suketaka, Utsunomiya, Hidetsuna, Shirato, Hiroki, Ogasawara, Kuniaki·2010·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the variability in the qualitative and quantitative results of computed tomographic (CT) perfusion imaging generated from identical source data of stroke patients by using commercially available software programs provided by various CT manufacturers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. CT perfusion imaging data of 10 stroke patients were postprocessed by using five commercial software packages, each of which had a different algorithm: singular-value decomposition (SVD), maximum slope (MS), inverse filter (IF), box modulation transfer function (bMTF), and by using custom-made original software with standard (sSVD) and block-circulant (bSVD) SVD methods. Areas showing abnormalities in cerebral blood flow (CBF), mean transit time (MTT), and cerebral blood volume (CBV) were compared with each other and with the final infarct areas. Differences among the ratios of quantitative values in the final infarct areas and those in the unaffected side were also examined. RESULTS: The areas with CBF or MTT abnormalities and the ratios of these values significantly varied among software, while those of CBV were stable. The areas with CBF or MTT abnormalities analyzed by using SVD or bMTF corresponded to those obtained with delay-sensitive sSVD, but overestimated the final infarct area. The values obtained from software by using MS or IF corresponded well with those obtained from the delay-insensitive bSVD and the final infarct area. Given the similarities between CBF and MTT, all software were separated in two groups (ie, sSVD and bSVD). The ratios of CBF or MTTs correlated well within both groups, but not across them. CONCLUSION: CT perfusion imaging maps were significantly different among commercial software even when using identical source data, presumably because of differences in tracer-delay sensitivity.

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.254082000

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.

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

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Kudo, K., Sasaki, M., Yamada, K., Momoshima, S., Utsunomiya, H., Shirato, H., & Ogasawara, K.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2010-01
Volume
254
Issue
1
Pages
200-209
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2001414884
Cited by
332
References
0
FWCI
13.57
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: Differences in CT Perfusion Maps Generated by Different Commercial Software: Quantitative Analysis by Using Identical Source Data of Acute Stroke Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.254082000
The paper
Kudo, K., Sasaki, M., Yamada, K., Momoshima, S., Utsunomiya, H., Shirato, H., & Ogasawara, K. (2010). Differences in CT Perfusion Maps Generated by Different Commercial Software: Quantitative Analysis by Using Identical Source Data of Acute Stroke Patients. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.254082000

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.