Contrast-to-noise ratios and thickness-normalized, ventilation-dependent signal levels in dark-field and conventional in vivo thorax radiographs of two pigs

Lung tissue causes significant small-angle X-ray scattering, which can be visualized with grating-based X-ray dark-field imaging. Structural lung diseases alter alveolar microstructure, which often causes a dark-field signal decrease. The imaging method provides benefits for diagnosis of such diseases in small-animal models, and was successfully used on porcine and human lungs in a fringe-scanning setup. Micro- and macroscopic changes occur in the lung during breathing, but their individual effects on the dark-field signal are unknown. However, this information is important for quantitative medical evaluation of dark-field thorax radiographs. To estimate the effect of these changes on the dark-field signal during a clinical examination, we acquired in vivo dark-field chest radiographs of two pigs at three ventilation pressures. Pigs were used due to the high degree of similarity between porcine and human lungs. To analyze lung expansion separately, we acquired CT scans of both pigs at comparable posture and ventilation pressures. Segmentation, masking, and forward-projection of the CT datasets yielded maps of lung thickness and logarithmic lung attenuation signal in registration with the dark-field radiographs. Upon correlating this data, we discovered approximately linear relationships between the logarithmic dark-field signal and both projected quantities for all scans. Increasing ventilation pressure strongly decreased dark-field extinction coefficients, whereas the ratio of lung dark-field and attenuation signal changed only slightly. Furthermore, we investigated ratios of dark-field and attenuation noise levels at realistic signal levels via calculations and phantom measurements. Dark-field contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) per lung height was 5 to 10% of the same quantity in attenuation. We conclude that better CNR performance in the dark-field modality is typically due to greater anatomical noise in the conventional radiograph. Given the high physiological similarity of human and porcine lungs, the presented thickness-normalized, ventilation-dependent values allow estimation of dark-field activity of human lungs of variable size and inspiration, which facilitates the design of suitable clinical imaging setups.


INTRODUCTION
Background 3 a. Include sufficient scientific background (including relevant references to previous work) to understand the motivation and context for the study, and explain the experimental approach and rationale. b. Explain how and why the animal species and model being used can address the scientific objectives and, where appropriate, the study's relevance to human biology.
Objectives 4 Clearly describe the primary and any secondary objectives of the study, or specific hypotheses being tested.

METHODS
Ethical statement 5 Indicate the nature of the ethical review permissions, relevant licences (e.g. Animal [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986), and national or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals, that cover the research.

Study design 6
For each experiment, give brief details of the study design including: a. The number of experimental and control groups. b. Any steps taken to minimise the effects of subjective bias when allocating animals to treatment (e.g. randomisation procedure) and when assessing results (e.g. if done, describe who was blinded and when). c. The experimental unit (e.g. a single animal, group or cage of animals). A time-line diagram or flow chart can be useful to illustrate how complex study designs were carried out.

7
For each experiment and each experimental group, including controls, provide precise details of all procedures carried out. For example: a. How (e.g. drug formulation and dose, site and route of administration, anaesthesia and analgesia used [including monitoring], surgical procedure, method of euthanasia). Provide details of any specialist equipment used, including supplier(s). b. When (e.g. time of day). c. Where (e.g. home cage, laboratory, water maze). d. Why (e.g. rationale for choice of specific anaesthetic, route of administration, drug dose used).
Experimental animals 8 a. Provide details of the animals used, including species, strain, sex, developmental stage (e.g. mean or median age plus age range) and weight (e.g. mean or median weight plus weight range). b. Provide further relevant information such as the source of animals, international strain nomenclature, genetic modification status (e.g. knock-out or transgenic), genotype, health/immune status, drug or test naïve, previous procedures, etc.  Allocating animals to experimental groups 11 a. Give full details of how animals were allocated to experimental groups, including randomisation or matching if done. b. Describe the order in which the animals in the different experimental groups were treated and assessed.

12
Clearly define the primary and secondary experimental outcomes assessed (e.g. cell death, molecular markers, behavioural changes).
Statistical methods 13 a. Provide details of the statistical methods used for each analysis. b. Specify the unit of analysis for each dataset (e.g. single animal, group of animals, single neuron). c. Describe any methods used to assess whether the data met the assumptions of the statistical approach.

Baseline data 14
For each experimental group, report relevant characteristics and health status of animals (e.g. weight, microbiological status, and drug or test naïve) prior to treatment or testing. (This information can often be tabulated).
Numbers analysed 15 a. Report the number of animals in each group included in each analysis. Report absolute numbers (e.g. 10/20, not 50% 2 ).
b. If any animals or data were not included in the analysis, explain why.

Outcomes and estimation
16 Report the results for each analysis carried out, with a measure of precision (e.g. standard error or confidence interval).
Adverse events 17 a. Give details of all important adverse events in each experimental group. b. Describe any modifications to the experimental protocols made to reduce adverse events. c. Describe any implications of your experimental methods or findings for the replacement, refinement or reduction (the 3Rs) of the use of animals in research.

Generalisability/ translation
19 Comment on whether, and how, the findings of this study are likely to translate to other species or systems, including any relevance to human biology.
Funding 20 List all funding sources (including grant number) and the role of the funder(s) in the study.  Materials and methods, "In vivo imaging procedure" Materials and methods, "In vivo imaging procedure" Materials and methods, "In vivo imaging procedure"