Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare image qualities between vendor-neutral and vendor-specific hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) techniques for abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) in young patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In phantom study, we used an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom, age-equivalent to 5-year-old, and reconstructed CT data using traditional filtered back projection (FBP), vendor-specific and vendor-neutral IR techniques (ClariCT; ClariPI) in various radiation doses. Noise, low-contrast detectability and subjective spatial resolution were compared between FBP, vendor-specific (i.e., iDose1 to 5; Philips Healthcare), and vendor-neutral (i.e., ClariCT1 to 5) IR techniques in phantom. In 43 patients (median, 14 years; age range 1-19 years), noise, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitative image quality scores of abdominopelvic CT were compared between FBP, iDose level 4 (iDose4), and ClariCT level 2 (ClariCT2), which showed most similar image quality to clinically used vendor-specific IR images (i.e., iDose4) in phantom study. Noise, CNR, and qualitative imaging scores were compared using one-way repeated measure analysis of variance. CONCLUSION: Vendor-neutral IR technique shows image quality similar to that of clinically used vendor-specific hybrid IR technique for abdominopelvic CT in young patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: