ArticleScientific reports2025
Deep learning reconstruction enhances tophus detection in a dual-energy CT phantom study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision imaging biomarkers for gout: artifact-specific spectral CT parameters for personalized differentiation of tophi in a prospective study.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Article
- Status, challenges, and prospects of artificial intelligence application in gout diagnosis and treatment, drug research and development, and disease monitoring.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Federated learning-based virtual dual-energy CT generation from single-energy CT for gout detection.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare two deep learning reconstruction (DLR) techniques (AiCE mild; AiCE strong) with two established methods-iterative reconstruction (IR) and filtered back projection (FBP)-for the detection of monosodium urate (MSU) in dual-energy computed tomography (DECT). An ex vivo bio-phantom and a raster phantom were prepared by inserting syringes containing different MSU concentrations and scanned in a 320-rows volume DECT scanner at different tube currents. The scans were reconstructed in a soft tissue kernel using the four reconstruction techniques mentioned above, followed by quantitative assessment of MSU volumes and image quality parameters, i.e., signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Both DLR techniques outperformed conventional IR and FBP in terms of volume detection and image quality. Notably, unlike IR and FBP, the two DLR methods showed no positive correlation of the MSU detection rate with the CT dose index (CTDIvol) in the bio-phantom. Our study highlights the potential of DLR for DECT imaging in gout, where it offers enhanced detection sensitivity, improved image contrast, reduced image noise, and lower radiation exposure. Further research is needed to assess the clinical reliability of this approach.
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.