A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Using the MDCT thick slab MinIP method for the follow-up of pulmonary emphysema. | LitMetric

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of thick slab minimum intensity projection (MinIP) as a follow-up method in patients with pulmonary emphysema. This method was used to determine the presence or absence of changes over time in the lung field based on multi-detector-row CT (MDCT) data.

Methods: Among patients diagnosed with pulmonary emphysema who underwent 16-MDCT (slice thickness, 1 mm) twice at an interval of 6 months or more, 12 patients without changes in the lung field and 14 with clear changes in the lung field were selected as subjects. An image interpretation experiment was performed by five image interpreters. Pulmonary emphysema was followed up using two types of thick slab MinIP (thick slab MinIP 1 and 2) and multi-planar reformation (MPR), and the results of image interpretation were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. In addition, the time required for image interpretation was compared among the three follow-up methods.

Results: The area under the ROC curve (Az) was 0.794 for thick slab MinIP 1, 0.778 for the thick slab MinIP 2, and 0.759 for MPR, showing no significant differences among the three methods. Individual differences in each item were significantly more marked for MPR than for thick slab MinIP. The time required for image interpretation was around 18 seconds for thick slab MinIP 1, 11 seconds for thick slab MinIP 2, and approximately 127 seconds for MPR, showing significant differences among the three methods.

Conclusion: There were no significant differences in the results of image interpretation regarding the presence or absence of changes in the lung fields between thick slab MinIP and MPR. However, thick slab MinIP showed a shorter image interpretation time and smaller individual differences in the results among image interpreters than MPR, suggesting the usefulness of this method for determining the presence or absence of changes with time in the lung fields of patients with pulmonary emphysema.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2152/jmi.58.175DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

thick slab
44
slab minip
40
image interpretation
24
pulmonary emphysema
20
presence absence
12
absence changes
12
lung field
12
changes lung
12
slab
11
minip
11

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!