ArticleMedical physics2025
Comparative image quality and dosimetric performance of two generations of dedicated breast CT systems.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and performance evaluation of an upright dedicated cone-beam breast CT system.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Comparative image quality and dosimetric performance of two generations of dedicated breast CT systems.Medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDedicated breast computed tomography (bCT) systems offer detailed imaging for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. As new bCT generations are developed, it is important to evaluate their imaging performance and dose efficiency to understand differences over previous models. PURPOSE: To characterize the imaging performance and dose efficiency of a second-generation (GEN2) bCT system and compare them to those of a first-generation (GEN1) system.
methodsThe imaging performance was evaluated through key metrics: modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) in the projection domain. In the image domain, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the visibility of calcifications were analyzed using a quality control (QC) phantom with masses and calcification clusters. Air kerma and tube output were measured and mean glandular dose (MGD) estimated for different phantom sizes for dosimetric characterization of the acquisition protocols set by the automatic exposure control (AEC).
resultsGEN2 outperformed GEN1 at higher spatial frequencies, with 57% of the MTF observed at 1 cycles/mm compared to 43% for GEN1. For a 2 mm diameter mass, GEN2 showed 60% higher CNR and 63% higher SNR. However, for larger masses, GEN1 outperformed GEN2, with CNR and SNR values higher by 12% to 44% and 14% to 43%, respectively. GEN2 also achieves higher DQE across the frequency spectrum, with 45% at 1 cycle/mm, compared to GEN1's 20%. Regarding calcifications in the QC phantom, the 320 µm calcifications resulted in distinct full-width-at-half-maxima (FWHM ± SD), with 897 ± 58 µm for GEN1 and 811 ± 127 µm for GEN2, with a p-value of 0.19. For 290 µm calcifications, GEN1's FWHM was 866 ± 129 µm, while GEN2's was narrower at 665 ± 57 µm, with a p-value of 0.01. The tube output was higher for GEN1 (45.2 mGy/mAs) compared to GEN2 (31.5 mGy/mAs). Additionally, GEN2 resulted in 8% lower MGD values compared to GEN1.
conclusionWhile GEN1 offers better CNR and SNR for larger masses, GEN2 provides superior resolution for calcifications, better MTF, improved DQE, and lower MGD at AEC-determined settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.