Next Article in Journal
How to Combat Over-Testing for Patients Suspected of Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Image-Based Numerical Analysis for Isolated Type II SLAP Lesions in Shoulder Abduction and External Rotation
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Learning-Based Algorithm for Automatic Detection of Pulmonary Embolism in Chest CT Angiograms
Previous Article in Special Issue
First Results of a New Deep Learning Reconstruction Algorithm on Image Quality and Liver Metastasis Conspicuity for Abdominal Low-Dose CT
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/diagnostics13071325
Review Report
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Image Quality Analysis of Photon-Counting CT Compared with Dual-Source CT: A Phantom Study for Chest CT Examinations

Diagnostics 2023, 13(7), 1325; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071325
by Marine Deleu 1,*, Jean-Baptiste Maurice 1, Laura Devos 1, Martine Remy 2 and François Dubus 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Antonio Manenti
Diagnostics 2023, 13(7), 1325; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13071325
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 27 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 3 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantitative Imaging in Computed Tomography)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Review - Image quality analysis of photon-counting CT compared with dual-source CT: a phantom study for chest CT examinations

The provided manuscript by Deleu et al. deals with the very interesting topic of image quality of PCCT compared to DECT with an EI detector. This is a noteworthy article. However, some clarifications and amendments should be made.

Title:

The title is adequate.

Abstract:

The statement about superiority in lung nodule detection is not included in the abstract.

Introduction:

p.1 LL 27-28: “in other” please explain or rephrase.

p.1 LL 39-40: the authors are probably right, however this will have to be proven true within the coming years. Please consider rephrasing.

p.1 LL85-86: “Both systems CTDIvol displayed were controlled before doing the 85 measurements and were in conformity with national regulation.” Please explain in more detail, what was controlled and how? What national regulation?

Methods:

p.2 LL75-76: VA40 and VB20 are software version numbers, please indicate within the text.

p.2 LL83-84: which national reference levels? please provide reference.

Results:

Table 4,5 and 6 are not completely visible within the .pdf file. Please check.

Discussion:

p.9 LL. 183-185: The sentence is a bit odd. Please consider rephrasing it (maybe two sentences) to make the point clearer.

p.10 LL 190-196: Comparisons with other manufacturers seems very interesting. However, the paragraph seems a bit out of place here. Please consider an introductory sentence to make it clearer to the reader.

p.10 LL. 221-228: In clinical routine, we use different kernels when reconstructing PCCT images compared to conventional CT, especially when using optimal spatial resolution (0.2 mm). In my opinion, it would be interesting to include different kernels... perhaps in a future study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This innovative technique is interesting: could you give some details on its possible clinical application, eventually supplemented by some images?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop