ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2026
Impact of beam hardening on proton stopping-power ratio estimation using photon-counting, dual-energy, and single-energy computed tomography.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Accurate stopping-power ratio (SPR) estimation is essential for treatment planning of proton therapy. However, SPR accuracy is influenced by object size and position due to beam hardening. This study compared proton SPR estimation using photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT), dual-energy CT (DECT), and single-energy CT (SECT) across varying phantom sizes and insert positions. Materials and methods: Two phantoms with tissue-equivalent inserts were scanned using PCCT, DECT, and SECT scanners. Based on the PCCT and DECT scans, virtual monoenergetic images (VMIs) were created. Two SPR estimation methods were used: a DECT-based method and a SECT-based Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT). SPRs were calibrated on the Gammex Advanced Electron Density phantom and evaluated on a cylindrical phantom with four diameters. To assess size-dependency of the estimated SPR, tissue-equivalent bone inserts were placed centrally in the evaluation phantom, for each of the four diameters. To assess position-dependent SPR uncertainty, the inserts were placed at different distances from the centre of the evaluation phantom with fixed diameters. Results: For smaller phantom diameters, SPR estimation accuracy was comparable across PCCT, DECT, and SECT. For larger phantom diameters (30 and 40 cm), SPRs estimated based on SECT and DECT showed position-dependency. PCCT demonstrated the most stable SPR estimations across positions, with deviations between 0.9% and 2.1%. SPR estimations were more stable using a HLUT than the DECT-based SPR method. Conclusions: SPR estimated based on PCCT-VMI with a HLUT showed reduced impact of beam hardening effects related to size and position.
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.