Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Abdominal CT With Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR): Initial Results of a Prospective Trial Comparing Ultralow-Dose With Standard-Dose Imaging

Open access
Pickhardt, Perry J., Lubner, Meghan G., Kim, David H., Tang, Jie, Ruma, Julie A., del Rio, Alejandro Muñoz, Chen, Guang-Hong·2012·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial of ultralow-dose abdominal MDCT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Imaging with standard-dose contrast-enhanced (n = 21) and unenhanced (n = 24) clinical abdominal MDCT protocols was immediately followed by ultralow-dose imaging of a matched series of 45 consecutively registered adults (mean age, 57.9 years; mean body mass index, 28.5). The ultralow-dose images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR), and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR). Standard-dose series were reconstructed with FBP (reference standard). Image noise was measured at multiple predefined sites. Two blinded abdominal radiologists interpreted randomly presented ultralow-dose images for multilevel subjective image quality (5-point scale) and depiction of organ-based focal lesions. RESULTS: Mean dose reduction relative to the standard series was 74% (median, 78%; range, 57-88%; mean effective dose, 1.90 mSv). Mean multiorgan image noise for low-dose MBIR was 14.7 ± 2.6 HU, significantly lower than standard-dose FBP (28.9 ± 9.9 HU), low-dose FBP (59.2 ± 23.3 HU), and ASIR (45.6 ± 14.1 HU) (p < 0.001). The mean subjective image quality score for low-dose MBIR (3.0 ± 0.5) was significantly higher than for low-dose FBP (1.6 ± 0.7) and ASIR (1.8 ± 0.7) (p < 0.001). Readers identified 213 focal noncalcific lesions with standard-dose FBP. Pooled lesion detection was higher for low-dose MBIR (79.3% [169/213]) compared with low-dose FBP (66.2% [141/213]) and ASIR (62.0% [132/213]) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MBIR shows great potential for substantially reducing radiation doses at routine abdominal CT. Both FBP and ASIR are limited in this regard owing to reduced image quality and diagnostic capability. Further investigation is needed to determine the optimal dose level for MBIR that maintains adequate diagnostic performance. In general, objective and subjective image quality measurements do not necessarily correlate with diagnostic performance at ultralow-dose CT.

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.12.9382

Cites

24 of 24 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 24 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Pickhardt, P. J., Lubner, M. G., Kim, D. H., Tang, J., Ruma, J. A., del Rio, A. M., & Chen, G.-H.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
Published
2012-12
Volume
199
Issue
6
Pages
1266-1274
ISSN
  • 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 0361-803X
  • 1546-3141
OpenAlex
W2118902776
Cited by
309
References
24
FWCI
27.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 With Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR): Initial Results of a Prospective Trial Comparing Ultralow-Dose With Standard-Dose Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.12.9382
The paper
Pickhardt, P. J., Lubner, M. G., Kim, D. H., Tang, J., Ruma, J. A., del Rio, A. M., & Chen, G.-H. (2012). Abdominal CT With Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR): Initial Results of a Prospective Trial Comparing Ultralow-Dose With Standard-Dose Imaging. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.9382

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.