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.

Clinical data sheet for included cases.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Three physicians’ subjective ratings of Group A and Group B images.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Lung Window (120 kV Scan).

The right lung exhibits scattered patchy opacities, nodules, tree bud signs, and dot stripe patterns. Faint bronchial columnar changes are observed. Obvious respiratory movement artifacts are present. The volume of the left lung appears reduced.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Mediastinal Window (120 kV Scan).

The left lung shows soft tissue density and a translucent area indicative of insect erosion. The left side of the heart and surrounding structures are visualized.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Lung window (Sn100kV scan).

Multiple scattered patchy opacities, small nodules, tree-in-bud opacities, and heterogeneous dot-like/linear densities are observed in the right lung. The lesion morphology remains consistent with that shown in Fig 1. Compared to Fig 1, bronchiectatic changes are distinctly visible within the bronchial architecture, and no significant respiratory motion artifacts are observed.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Mediastinal windows (Sn100kV scan).

Leftward cardiac displacement is observed. The left lung demonstrates a soft-tissue density lesion containing moth-eaten lucent area. Image qquality remains comparable to that of Fig 2 in terms of anatomical delineation and artifact control.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison table of pathological signs detected in Groups A and B.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 5.

Objective evaluation of mediastinal window in group A and group B images.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 4.

Table of objective evaluation results of lung window in group A and group B.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Statistical table of motion artifacts in group A and group B.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Comparison of radiation doses between group A and group B.

More »

Fig 6 Expand