Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35690601›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

The importance of routine quality control for reproducible pulmonary measurements by in vivo micro-CT.

Martina Mambrini, Laura Mecozzi, Erica Ferrini, Ludovica Leo, Davide Bernardi, Andrea Grandi, Nicola Sverzellati, Livia Ruffini, Mario Silva, Franco Fabio Stellari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martina Mambrini *Department of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Laura Mecozzi *Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Erica FerriniDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Ludovica LeoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Davide BernardiDepartment of Veterinary Science, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Andrea GrandiPharmacology and Toxicology Department Corporate Pre-Clinical R&D, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Largo Belloli, 11/A, 43122, Parma, Italy.
Nicola SverzellatiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Livia RuffiniDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Mario SilvaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Franco Fabio StellariPharmacology and Toxicology Department Corporate Pre-Clinical R&D, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Largo Belloli, 11/A, 43122, Parma, Italy. fb.stellari@chiesi.com.
University of Parma · ITChiesi (Italy) · ITOspedale di Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Micro-computed tomography (CT) imaging provides densitometric and functional assessment of lung diseases in animal models, playing a key role either in understanding disease progression or in drug discovery studies. The generation of reliable and reproducible experimental data is strictly dependent on a system's stability. Quality controls (QC) are essential to monitor micro-CT performance but, although QC procedures are standardized and routinely employed in clinical practice, detailed guidelines for preclinical imaging are lacking. In this work, we propose a routine QC protocol for in vivo micro-CT, based on three commercial phantoms. To investigate the impact of a detected scanner drift on image post-processing, a retrospective analysis using twenty-two healthy mice was performed and lung density histograms used to compare the area under curve (AUC), the skewness and the kurtosis before and after the drift. As expected, statistically significant differences were found for all the selected parameters [AUC 532 ± 31 vs. 420 ± 38 (p < 0.001); skewness 2.3 ± 0.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001) and kurtosis 4.2 ± 0.3 vs. 5.1 ± 0.5 (p < 0.001)], confirming the importance of the designed QC procedure to obtain a reliable longitudinal quantification of disease progression and drug efficacy evaluation.

Indexed as

LungLung DiseasesAnimalsDisease ProgressionMiceQuality ControlRetrospective StudiesX-Ray Microtomography

Identifiers

PMID35690601
PMCPMC9188608
OpenAlexW4282839756

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.