ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Towards optimized CT lung cancer screening scan protocols.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate radiation dose and image quality for CT lung cancer screening protocols and to determine which reconstruction kernels deliver accurate nodule volumetry.
methodsA variable size anthropomorphic chest phantom and a lung screening image quality phantom were scanned on 17 different scanner models. Dose metrics from the chest phantom scans were compared against international dose recommendations. Image quality phantom scans were used to assess whether the protocol yielded accurate nodule volumetry as per the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) criteria, and to determine whether changes were needed to enable this.
resultsDoses varied by up to a factor of 7 for the largest phantom size. All protocols delivered doses below the UK standards but only 2 scanners met the European dose criteria. Many scanners failed to meet the QIBA criteria with lung reconstruction kernels, primarily due to excessive edge enhancement and insufficient 3D spatial resolution. With alternative reconstruction kernels, the QIBA criteria were met on all bar 2 scanners.
conclusionsStandard lung screening CT protocols on contemporary scanners produce images of varying image quality, over a wide range of radiation doses. Scanner-specific reconstruction kernel selection is required to meet the QIBA criteria. The study findings enable the development of optimized CT scanning protocols for lung cancer screening program. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Standard lung cancer screening scanning protocols demonstrate notable variations in dose. Lung reconstruction kernels often yield inaccurate measurements of nodule volume; instead, soft tissue kernels are necessary to obtain reliable results.
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.