Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Patients’ physical characteristics.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Quantitative image assessment.

Quantitative image analysis in a 65-year-old woman with body mass index of 27. Transverse images obtained with FD-FBP (A), FD-SAFIRE (B), RD1-FBP (C), RD1-SAFIRE (D), RD2-FBP (E), and RD2-SAFIRE (F). FD = full dose, RD = reduced dose (RD1 = 80% dose, RD2 = 60% dose), FBP = filtered back projection, SAFIRE = sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction. Image noise was measured in six defined soft tissue regions (liver, spleen, aorta, gallbladder, left and right erector spinae muscles) and air. For reasons of clarity regions of interest are only shown in RD2-FBP (E). Compared to FD-FBP mean image noise in soft tissue significantly (p <0.001) increased in RD1- and RD2-FBP reconstructions whereas mean image noise in RD-SAFIRE reconstructions significantly decreased (p <0.001).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Potential of radiation dose savings in reduced-dose thoracoabdominal CT.

Box and whisker plot demonstrates potential for significant radiation dose reduction in reduced-dose (RD1 = 80% dose; RD2 = 60% dose) thoracoabdominal CT using SAFIRE compared to full-dose (FD) scans. ED = effective dose (mSv). Both outliers above average study group dose values in RD1- and RD2-CT scans were obese patients.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Radiation dose estimates.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Quantitative image analysis.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Overall scores of subjective image analysis (visually sharp anatomic reproduction and image quality).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Overall scores of subjective image analysis (pathologic findings).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

ANOVA and post-hoc analysis of subjective image scores.

More »

Table 6 Expand