ArticleScientific reports2026
Intraindividual comparison of photon-counting detector CT and third-generation dual-source energy-integrating detector CT in multiphasic contrast-enhanced abdominal CT.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare image quality between photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) and third-generation dual-source energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) in multiphasic contrast-enhanced abdominal imaging using intraindividual analysis. This retrospective study included 88 patients who underwent both arterial phase (AP) and portal venous phase (PVP) abdominal CT with PCD-CT and EID-CT. Virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) from 50 to 90 keV were reconstructed in PCD-CT, and 120 kVp images were applied in EID-CT. Quantitative image analysis evaluated CT attenuation, image noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in abdominal organs and vessels. Qualitative image quality, including vessel and parenchymal contrast, noise, and overall image quality, was assessed by two radiologists using a 5-point Likert scale. Compared with EID-CT, VMIs at 50–70 keV obtained from PCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher CT attenuation values (P < 0.001) across all evaluated abdominal organs and vessels. CNRs at 70 keV were significantly greater than those in EID-CT for all objects (P < 0.001), with increases of 13.3‒41.6% on AP and 40.4‒49.3% on PVP. Image noise in 70 keV VMI was lower than EID-CT (P < 0.001). Optimal image quality was achieved using VMIs at 60–70 keV, which achieved significantly higher qualitative scores (P < 0.001) than those from EID-CT. Substantial interobserver agreement was observed (κ = 0.60–0.79). The CT dose volume index was slightly lower with PCD-CT compared with EID-CT (P < 0.001), whereas dose-length product values remained similar. PCD-CT significantly improved image quality in multiphasic abdominal CT compared with third-generation dual-source EID-CT under equivalent radiation dose conditions. The superior iodine enhancement and higher CNR in VMIs at 60–70 keV highlight the advantages of PCD-CT.
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.