% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Wielptz:127788,
      author       = {M. O. Wielpütz$^*$ and J. Wroblewski$^*$ and M. Lederlin
                      and J. Dinkel and M. Eichinger and M. Koenigkam-Santos and
                      J. Biederer$^*$ and H.-U. Kauczor$^*$ and M. U.
                      Puderbach$^*$ and B. J. Jobst$^*$},
      title        = {{C}omputer-aided detection of artificial pulmonary nodules
                      using an ex vivo lung phantom: influence of exposure
                      parameters and iterative reconstruction.},
      journal      = {European journal of radiology},
      volume       = {84},
      number       = {5},
      issn         = {0720-048X},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2017-03810},
      pages        = {1005 - 1011},
      year         = {2015},
      abstract     = {To evaluate the influence of exposure parameters and
                      raw-data based iterative reconstruction (IR) on the
                      performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) of pulmonary
                      nodules on chest multidetector computed tomography
                      (MDCT).Seven porcine lung explants were inflated in a
                      dedicated ex vivo phantom shell and prepared with n=162
                      artificial nodules of a clinically relevant volume and
                      maximum diameter (46-1063 μl, and 6.2-21.5 mm). n=118
                      nodules were solid and n=44 part-solid. MDCT was performed
                      with different combinations of 120 and 80 kV with 120, 60,
                      30 and 12 mA*s, and reconstructed with both filtered back
                      projection (FBP) and IR. Subsequently, 16 datasets per lung
                      were subjected to dedicated CAD software. The rate of true
                      positive, false negative and false positive CAD marks was
                      measured for each reconstruction.The rate of true positive
                      findings ranged between $88.9-91.4\%$ for FBP and
                      $88.3-90.1\%$ for IR (n.s.) with most exposure settings, but
                      was significantly lower with the combination of 80 kV and 12
                      mA*s $(80.9\%$ and $81.5\%,$ respectively, p<0.05). False
                      positive findings ranged between 2.3-8.1 annotations per
                      lung. For nodule volumes <200 μl the rate of true positives
                      was significantly lower than for >300 μl (p<0.05).
                      Similarly, it was significantly lower for diameters <12 mm
                      compared to ≥12 mm (p<0.05). The rate of true positives
                      for solid and part-solid nodules was similar.Nodule CAD on
                      chest MDCT is robust over a wide range of exposure settings.
                      Noise reduction by IR is not detrimental for CAD, and may be
                      used to improve image quality in the setting of low-dose
                      MDCT for lung cancer screening.},
      cin          = {E010 / E015},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E015-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:25740701},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.01.025},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/127788},
}