Back

Virtual Noncontrast Imaging with Deep-Silicon Photon-Counting CT: Matched Phantom and Initial Human Evaluation

Azimi, N.; Brian-Choux, A.; Feemster, S.; Rahbar, A.; Linder, H.; Crotty, D.; Yin, Z.; Balthazar, P.; Pourmorteza, A.

2026-10-05 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.10.02.26364524 medRxiv
Show abstract

To compare virtual noncontrast (VNC) error between deep-silicon photon-counting CT (PCCT) and dual-energy energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) in a matched phantom and characterize tissue-specific error in humans. This prospective exploratory study included a matched phantom experiment and pilot human evaluation. Prototype projection-domain water-density maps served as the VNC surrogate. Twenty-four vials containing 0.1--20 mg I/mL in deionized water or simulated blood were scanned with PCCT and EID-CT. Three men underwent true noncontrast and contrast-enhanced PCCT; 80 matched measurements were analyzed. Paired t tests and mixed-effects models assessed system differences and iodine associations. Three participants (mean age, 67 {+/-} 10 years; all men) were included. Mean VNC error was 29.1 HU lower with PCCT than EID-CT (95% CI, 15.5--42.7 HU; {rho} < 0.001). Error was not associated with iodine concentration for PCCT (slope, 0.03 HU per mg I/mL; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.98; {rho} = 0.95) but increased for EID-CT (slope, 3.51 HU per mg I/mL; 95% CI, 2.56--4.46 HU; {rho} < 0.001). The slopes differed by 3.48 HU per mg I/mL ({rho} < 0.001). In humans, errors in five non-blood-pool tissues were within 5 HU. Error was not associated with iodine concentration among 61 non-blood-pool measurements (adjusted slope, -0.17 HU per mg I/mL; 95% CI, -1.22 to 0.88; {rho} = 0.75). PCCT provided VNC measurements with errors closer to zero and less dependent on iodine than EID-CT in the phantom. In humans, error was generally small in non-blood-pool tissues and was not associated with iodine concentration.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.