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; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lower Tube Voltage Reduces Contrast Material and Radiation Doses on 16-MDCT Aortography

Nakayama, Yoshiharu, Awai, Kazuo, Funama, Yoshinori, Liu, Duo, Nakaura, Takeshi, Tamura, Yoshitaka, Yamashita, Yasuyuki·2006·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare aortic CT angiography performed at a low tube voltage and reduced dose of contrast material with standard-voltage, standard-contrast-dose CT angiography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We evaluated 74 patients for aortic disease on MDCT angiography (collimation, 16 x 1.5 mm; beam pitch, 0.9). In 36 patients, we used the standard tube voltage (120 kVp) and a contrast dose of 100 mL (300 mg I/mL) (protocol 1), and in the remaining 38 patients we applied a reduced tube voltage (90 kVp) and a contrast dose of 40 mL (300 mg I/mL) (protocol 2). The patients' weights, CT attenuation of the aorta, visualization of the celiac axis and renal artery, and graininess and streak artifacts on transverse CT scans were evaluated and recorded for each data set. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were also measured. For statistical analysis, we used the two-tailed Student's t test and logistic regression; agreement between measurements recorded independently by two blinded reviewers was assessed using Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: In both protocols a negative correlation was seen between patient weight and CT attenuation. In three protocol 1 patients weighing more than 70 kg, CT attenuation was less than 200 H. No difference was seen between the two protocols with respect to mean attenuation of the aorta (p = 0.13) or visualization of the celiac axis and renal artery (p = 0.35 and 0.60, respectively). Although the SNR and CNR were significantly higher in protocol 1 than in protocol 2, qualitative evaluation of graininess and streak artifacts showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.15 and 0.48, respectively). Interobserver agreement for quality assessments was within an acceptable range (kappa = 0.42-0.80). CONCLUSION: Low-contrast and low-voltage scans are appropriate for lighter patients (< 70 kg in body weight) with aortic disease. Moreover, this method is particularly valuable for follow-up studies of heavier patients (> 70 kg) with renal dysfunction.

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 · 10.2214/ajr.05.0471

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 159

Metadata

Authors
Nakayama, Y., Awai, K., Funama, Y., Liu, D., Nakaura, T., Tamura, Y., & Yamashita, Y.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2006-11
Volume
187
Issue
5
Pages
W490-W497
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W1972491392
Cited by
159
References
2
FWCI
4.03
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: Lower Tube Voltage Reduces Contrast Material and Radiation Doses on 16-MDCT Aortography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.05.0471
The paper
Nakayama, Y., Awai, K., Funama, Y., Liu, D., Nakaura, T., Tamura, Y., & Yamashita, Y. (2006). Lower Tube Voltage Reduces Contrast Material and Radiation Doses on 16-MDCT Aortography. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.05.0471

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.