Ultra-Low-Dose CT: How Low Can We Go Without Losing the Diagnosis?

Introduction

The question “How low can we go?” has become increasingly relevant in computed tomography. Automatic exposure control, iterative reconstruction, deep-learning reconstruction, spectral beam shaping, and photon-counting detector technology have made it possible to generate diagnostically useful images at radiation doses that would have been difficult to achieve in earlier CT practice.

The clinically important question, however, is not whether an image can be acquired at a very low dose. It is whether the resulting image can answer the diagnostic question reliably in a specific patient.

This distinction matters because CT safety has two components. Unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation should be avoided, particularly in younger patients, screening populations, and patients who undergo repeated imaging. At the same time, insufficient image quality can cause harm through false reassurance, missed findings, nondiagnostic examinations, delayed diagnosis, or repeat scanning.

Radiation-related cancer risk from medically necessary diagnostic CT is generally considered small, particularly for an individual examination, but risk estimates at low doses remain subject to substantial statistical and scientific uncertainty. This uncertainty does not eliminate the need for optimization. It reinforces the importance of balancing radiation exposure against the clinical consequences of an inadequate examination.[9-11]

Modern CT practice therefore emphasizes justification and optimization rather than dose minimization alone. The safest examination is not necessarily the scan with the lowest radiation output. It is the examination that uses the lowest dose consistent with an adequate diagnostic answer.

This task-based perspective is relevant throughout diagnostic imaging. The image quality needed to identify a high-contrast ureteral calculus differs from that required to characterize a pancreatic lesion, detect early bowel ischemia, evaluate pulmonary embolism, or measure subtle progression of a subsolid lung nodule.

Defining Ultra-Low-Dose CT

There is no single universal definition of ULDCT. In published studies, the term may refer to:

1. A sub-millisievert CT examination

2. A CT examination approaching the effective dose of chest radiography

3. A protocol using a markedly reduced volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) or dose-length product (DLP)

4. A defined percentage reduction from a local standard-dose protocol

These definitions are not interchangeable. A protocol developed for pulmonary nodule detection cannot be assumed adequate for interstitial lung disease characterization. A reduced-dose stone protocol cannot be assumed adequate for undifferentiated abdominal pain. A protocol validated in normal-weight adults on a modern scanner may not perform similarly in patients with severe obesity, motion artifact, metallic hardware, or older scanner technology.

Dose metrics also require careful interpretation. CTDIvol and DLP are measures of scanner output, not direct measurements of dose to an individual patient. Effective dose can support approximate population-level comparisons, but it should not be interpreted as a precise estimate of an individual patient’s cancer risk.[1,2]

For quality oversight, CTDIvol and DLP should be considered alongside diagnostic reference levels, achievable doses, patient size, image-quality assessment, nondiagnostic examination rates, repeat-imaging rates, and task-specific diagnostic performance.

Why This Topic Matters Now

Many patients undergo repeated CT examinations over several years. Examples include patients with pulmonary nodules, recurrent nephrolithiasis, chronic lung disease, cancer, inflammatory conditions, and complex multisystem disease. Screening and surveillance programs also require reproducible protocols, standardized reporting, and dependable follow-up.

Technology has increased interest in ULDCT. Iterative reconstruction and deep-learning reconstruction can reduce visible image noise. Photon-counting detector CT can improve dose efficiency, spatial resolution, and spectral information in selected applications. These advances are meaningful, but they do not eliminate the fundamental tradeoff between radiation exposure and diagnostic information.[15,18]

Quality programs increasingly recognize that excessive radiation and inadequate image quality are paired safety problems. The CMS electronic clinical quality measure for diagnostic CT in adults evaluates both excessive radiation dose and inadequate image quality, reflecting the need to optimize rather than simply minimize exposure.[5]

For clinicians, the practical principle is straightforward: ULDCT is appropriate when the diagnostic question is narrow, the target is suitable, the patient is appropriate, and the protocol has been validated. It should not be used as a generic substitute for standard CT when the differential diagnosis is broad or when the consequences of a false-negative examination are substantial.

The Core Principle: Diagnostic Task Before Dose Target

Dose reduction should begin with the diagnostic task, not with a numeric dose target. A visibly noisy image may remain adequate for a large, high-contrast target. Conversely, a visually smooth image may still fail to preserve subtle low-contrast findings.

Before requesting or endorsing ULDCT, clinicians and radiology teams should consider four questions:

1. What diagnosis must the examination rule in or rule out?

2. Is the target high contrast or low contrast?

3. Will the result meaningfully change management?

4. Has the protocol been validated for this indication, patient population, scanner, and reconstruction method?

These questions improve communication with radiology. “Low-dose CT chest” provides less useful information than “pulmonary nodule follow-up, compare with prior CT, noncontrast low-dose protocol if diagnostically adequate.”

Similarly, “abdominal pain” is too broad an indication for a narrowly optimized ULDCT protocol when the differential includes appendicitis, diverticulitis with abscess, bowel ischemia, malignancy, vascular disease, or complex postoperative pathology.

Where ULDCT Is Most Clinically Plausible

Lung Cancer Screening

Lung cancer screening is the best-known success of dose-reduced CT, but guideline-supported low-dose CT should not be equated with the lowest technically achievable ULDCT protocol.

The National Lung Screening Trial found a relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose CT compared with chest radiography in a high-risk population. The NELSON trial subsequently found reduced lung cancer mortality with volume-based CT screening among high-risk participants.[7,19] These trials support structured low-dose screening. They do not establish that all ultra-low-dose protocols preserve screening performance.

The current USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendation supports annual LDCT for adults aged 50 through 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or quit within the preceding 15 years. Screening should stop after 15 years of smoking abstinence or when a health condition substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo curative lung surgery.[23]

CMS Medicare coverage criteria are similar but use an upper age limit of 77 years and include additional documentation and counseling requirements.[4] Clinicians should distinguish USPSTF clinical recommendations from Medicare coverage requirements.

Screening programs should use validated protocols, reliable follow-up pathways, and structured reporting such as Lung-RADS version 2022.[3,6]

Pulmonary Nodule Detection and Follow-Up

Many solid pulmonary nodules are conspicuous because of the high contrast between soft tissue and aerated lung. This makes nodule detection and selected follow-up examinations plausible candidates for substantial dose reduction.

Detection and characterization are not equivalent tasks. Subsolid nodules, part-solid lesions, ground-glass components, spiculation, subtle interval growth, and measurement reproducibility may be more vulnerable to increased noise and reconstruction-related changes in image texture. A protocol that detects a nodule may be less dependable for longitudinal measurement or malignancy-risk classification.

A 2024 systematic review found generally high reported nodule-detection performance with ULDCT, but measurement and diagnostic characterization remained less certain, and the included studies were heterogeneous.[20]

The Fleischner Society supports dose-conscious CT technique for incidental nodule follow-up, particularly because repeated examinations may be required. That principle should not be interpreted to mean that every follow-up examination should use the lowest available dose regardless of nodule type, patient size, scanner capability, or clinical stakes.[17]

Urolithiasis

Urinary stone disease is one of the strongest use cases for reduced-dose noncontrast CT because calculi are usually high-contrast targets. Systematic reviews and current urolithiasis guidance support low-dose CT for appropriately selected patients, with reported diagnostic performance that is generally favorable when protocols are matched to patient size and the clinical task.[8,21]

The 2026 EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis support ultrasound as an initial imaging method in many patients, followed by noncontrast CT when diagnostic confirmation is needed. The ACR considers noncontrast CT without intravenous contrast usually appropriate as initial imaging for nonpregnant adults with acute flank pain and suspected stone disease.[8,13]

These approaches are complementary rather than contradictory. The optimal sequence depends on patient characteristics, local resources, pretest probability, and whether an alternative diagnosis must be evaluated.

Reduced-dose stone CT has important limitations. Performance may decline with very small calculi, larger body habitus, severe image noise, or motion. A narrowly tailored protocol may also be insufficient when the true question extends beyond “stone or no stone.”

If the differential includes appendicitis, diverticulitis, bowel obstruction, renal infarction, malignancy, gynecologic disease, or vascular pathology, a highly restricted stone protocol may not provide the necessary diagnostic information.

During pregnancy, ultrasound is the preferred initial modality. MRI may be considered when ultrasound is nondiagnostic. CT may still be appropriate when an urgent maternal diagnosis cannot be established by other methods and the result will affect management, but the examination should be justified and optimized.[8,27]

Pneumothorax, Emphysema, and Bronchiectasis

The chest is particularly suited to dose reduction because aerated lung provides high intrinsic contrast. Pneumothorax, emphysema, calcified granulomas, many solid nodules, and some manifestations of bronchiectasis may remain visible at substantially reduced doses.

Systematic reviews suggest that ULDCT can perform well for selected high-contrast chest abnormalities, but performance varies by finding, dose level, patient selection, and reference standard. Evidence is less consistent for small nodules, subtle emphysema, diffuse opacities, and findings requiring detailed parenchymal characterization.[16,22]

ULDCT may provide additional diagnostic information when chest radiographs are equivocal or when clinical suspicion remains high. However, substituting ULDCT for chest radiography is not a purely technical decision. CT detects more abnormalities, including incidental and clinically ambiguous findings. More detection can benefit some patients, but it may also increase follow-up imaging, surveillance, procedures, cost, and uncertainty.

Pneumonia and Lower Respiratory Tract Infection

Studies in emergency department populations have found that ULDCT can identify more pulmonary findings than chest radiography. That increased sensitivity does not automatically establish improved patient outcomes.

In the OPTIMACT randomized trial, an ULDCT-first strategy produced short-term functional outcomes comparable to those of chest radiography, but it also generated more incidental findings requiring follow-up. The findings support selective implementation rather than routine replacement of chest radiography in every patient with suspected nontraumatic pulmonary disease.[24]

Subsequent diagnostic analyses have found that ULDCT may produce more true-positive pneumonia findings but also more false-positive interpretations. Chest radiography may remain preferable for some findings, including pulmonary congestion.[14]

The clinical value of ULDCT therefore depends on whether additional findings alter treatment, disposition, antimicrobial use, or outcomes. A more sensitive test is not necessarily a better test when it detects clinically irrelevant abnormalities or increases false-positive evaluations.

Chronic Lung Disease and Diffuse Parenchymal Abnormalities

Patients with chronic lung disease may benefit from dose-conscious protocols because repeated imaging is common. Selected follow-up of known emphysema, bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, or other high-contrast abnormalities may be appropriate when the diagnostic target is clearly defined.

Diffuse lung disease requires greater caution. Ground-glass abnormality, mosaic attenuation, air trapping, early fibrosis, reticulation, honeycombing, and traction bronchiectasis are not equally tolerant of aggressive dose reduction.

When the clinical objective is high-resolution characterization of interstitial lung disease, the protocol should be designed to preserve the necessary spatial and contrast information. The examination should not be minimized solely to achieve a numeric dose target.

Where ULDCT Should Be Used Cautiously or Avoided

ULDCT is least suitable when low-contrast resolution is central to diagnosis. Examples include many abdominal and pelvic soft-tissue conditions, liver and pancreatic lesion characterization, subtle peritoneal disease, early abscess formation, inflammatory bowel complications, bowel ischemia, and oncologic staging in which small lesions may alter treatment.

Emergency imaging requires particular caution because a narrowly tailored protocol may answer one question while inadequately evaluating another. A stone protocol may identify ureterolithiasis yet fail to provide sufficient information regarding appendicitis, ovarian pathology, bowel inflammation, malignancy, or vascular emergencies.

In acute care, the harm associated with an inadequate negative examination may exceed the incremental benefit of further radiation reduction.

CT angiography is another setting in which dose reduction has limits. Evaluation of pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, mesenteric ischemia, coronary disease, and active bleeding requires appropriate contrast timing, signal-to-noise ratio, spatial resolution, and vascular enhancement. Dose-conscious CTA is appropriate, but an “ultra-low-dose CTA” protocol should not be assumed diagnostically adequate without indication-specific validation.

ULDCT also does not eliminate other imaging risks. It does not remove the potential adverse effects of iodinated contrast, prevent incidental findings, justify unnecessary multiphase imaging, or correct a poorly formulated clinical question.

In many situations, the most effective radiation-reduction strategy is to avoid an unnecessary examination, use ultrasound or MRI when appropriate, eliminate redundant phases, compare prior imaging before repeating CT, or narrow the anatomical scan range.

Technology Enablers

Automatic Exposure Control and Patient-Specific Protocoling

Automatic exposure control modulates tube current according to patient attenuation and protocol-specific image-quality targets. It can reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, but it does not guarantee diagnostic adequacy.

Patient centering, scan length, body habitus, tube voltage, tube current, pitch, detector configuration, reconstruction method, and clinical task all affect image quality and radiation output.

Clinicians generally do not need to prescribe these technical parameters. They should understand that “low dose” is not a fixed protocol. It is a patient-specific and task-specific strategy implemented through radiology and medical physics oversight.

Iterative and Deep-Learning Reconstruction

Iterative reconstruction and deep-learning reconstruction can reduce image noise and improve perceived image quality at lower acquisition doses. These methods have expanded the feasibility of reduced-dose imaging in several applications.[15]

Noise reduction should not be equated automatically with preserved diagnostic performance. Reconstruction algorithms can alter image texture, edges, lesion appearance, and quantitative measurements. Performance varies by vendor, software version, scanner platform, anatomy, patient size, dose level, and diagnostic task.

A smoother image is not necessarily a more diagnostically reliable image. Local validation should include task-specific lesion detection, measurement reproducibility, radiologist confidence, nondiagnostic rates, and comparison with the institution’s previous protocol.

Spectral Shaping

Spectral shaping methods, including tin filtration, remove selected low-energy photons that contribute relatively little to image formation while increasing absorbed dose. These approaches can improve dose efficiency in selected protocols, including some lung imaging and coronary calcium-scoring applications.

Their benefits should not be generalized to every anatomical region or diagnostic task. Protocol-specific validation remains necessary.

Photon-Counting Detector CT

Photon-counting detector CT directly counts individual X-ray photons and provides energy-resolved information. Compared with conventional energy-integrating detectors, the technology may improve spatial resolution, spectral capabilities, and dose efficiency in selected applications.[18]

FDA clearance of a photon-counting CT system establishes that the device may be marketed for its cleared diagnostic uses. It does not establish that every CT examination can be performed at an ultra-low dose without diagnostic tradeoffs.[12]

The same task-based standard applies. Lower-dose photon-counting protocols require validation for the clinical indication, patient population, scanner configuration, reconstruction method, and reporting threshold.

Patient Selection

ULDCT is most attractive when the patient may require repeated imaging and the diagnostic target is known and high contrast. Potential candidates include selected patients undergoing pulmonary nodule follow-up, recurrent stone formers, eligible participants in structured lung cancer screening programs, and patients requiring follow-up of known high-contrast chest findings.

Less suitable candidates include patients with:

• Severe obesity when image noise may impair interpretation

• A broad acute abdominal or thoracic differential diagnosis

• A need for subtle soft-tissue lesion characterization

• A need for detailed vascular assessment

• Motion, inability to cooperate, or hardware artifact that may substantially degrade image quality

• A clinical situation in which a false-negative result would create substantial risk

Children and younger adults require age- and size-specific protocols because radiation-risk considerations differ from those in older adults. Pediatric examinations should not use adult “one size fits all” techniques. Pediatric radiology and medical physics involvement are particularly important when aggressive dose reduction is considered.[28]

Pregnancy requires a separate risk-benefit assessment. Ultrasound and MRI are generally preferred when they can answer the clinical question. CT should not be withheld when an urgent maternal diagnosis requires CT and alternative modalities are inadequate, but the examination should be justified, optimized, and documented.[27]

Practical Approach for Clinicians

The referring clinician’s role is not to specify every technical CT parameter. It is to define the diagnostic task clearly enough for radiology to select the safest adequate protocol.

A practical ordering approach begins with the question: “What will I do differently based on the result?” If the answer is unclear, the examination may not be justified.

When the result is expected to affect management, the next questions are whether the target is high contrast, whether relevant prior imaging exists, whether another modality can answer the question, and whether a reduced-dose protocol has been validated.

For repeated imaging, the order should state the surveillance purpose and identify the relevant prior study. For example:

Pulmonary nodule follow-up. Compare with CT from March 2025. Use a low-dose protocol if diagnostically adequate for nodule characterization and measurement.

For suspected stones, the order should clarify whether the question is uncomplicated renal colic or broader abdominal pathology.

For chest symptoms, the order should distinguish among pneumonia evaluation, pneumothorax assessment, pulmonary nodule follow-up, pulmonary embolism evaluation, and interstitial lung disease characterization. These are different diagnostic tasks and should not share a generic low-dose protocol.

The final radiology report also matters. If the radiologist identifies limitations related to dose, body habitus, motion, or reconstruction, those limitations should be incorporated into clinical management. A negative but limited examination is not equivalent to a negative fully diagnostic examination.

Table 1. Clinical Tasks Most and Least Suited to ULDCT

Clinical task	General suitability	Principal caution
Solid pulmonary nodule detection or follow-up	Selective	Subsolid nodules, subtle growth, and measurement reproducibility may require higher-quality LDCT
Lung cancer screening	Program-dependent	Use validated guideline-based LDCT; do not substitute an unvalidated ULDCT protocol
Urolithiasis	Often suitable	Tiny stones, larger body habitus, and alternative diagnoses may reduce confidence
Pneumothorax or emphysema	Often suitable	A narrowly optimized protocol may be inadequate when broader thoracic disease is suspected
Pneumonia or lower respiratory tract infection	Selective	Additional true-positive findings may be accompanied by false positives and incidental abnormalities
Interstitial lung disease characterization	Limited or selective	Ground-glass change, air trapping, early fibrosis, and reticulation may require an HRCT-quality protocol
CT angiography, major trauma, acute abdomen, or oncologic staging	Generally unsuitable for generic ULDCT	Low-contrast or vascular detail may be essential, and a missed diagnosis may outweigh the radiation reduction

Table 2. Practical Ordering and Safety Checklist

Decision point	Practical action
Define the task	State the specific diagnosis or management question rather than requesting a generic CT
Consider alternatives	Determine whether ultrasound, MRI, radiography, or existing prior imaging can answer the question
Match protocol to target	Consider LDCT or ULDCT only when the target is sufficiently narrow and the protocol is validated
Protect diagnostic quality	Avoid aggressive dose reduction when a false-negative result would be dangerous
Reduce unnecessary exposure	Avoid redundant phases and unnecessary repeat examinations
Interpret limitations	Treat a negative examination cautiously when the report identifies motion, body habitus, noise, or other technical limitations
Monitor quality	Use radiology and medical physics governance to audit dose, image quality, nondiagnostic examinations, and repeat scans

Safety Considerations

The radiation risk from a single medically justified and optimized CT examination is generally small compared with the risk of missing a serious diagnosis. Nevertheless, each examination should be justified, and radiation exposure should be optimized, particularly in younger patients, screening populations, and patients undergoing repeated imaging.[9-11]

The safety discussion should include both sides of the equation. Excessive radiation exposure is undesirable, but inadequate image quality is also unsafe. A nondiagnostic examination may lead to repeat imaging, delayed diagnosis, inappropriate reassurance, or incorrect management.

False-positive findings also matter. ULDCT may identify small nodules, mild opacities, subtle airway findings, or incidental abnormalities that would not have been visible on chest radiography. Some findings are clinically important. Others may lead to additional imaging, surveillance, biopsy, cost, or anxiety without a clear clinical benefit.

Clinicians should therefore consider not only whether ULDCT detects more findings, but whether the additional information is likely to improve management or patient outcomes.

Implementation Considerations for Health Systems

ULDCT should not be implemented as a marketing label or a one-size-fits-all protocol. Implementation should occur through radiology-led protocol governance with medical physics input and disease-specific clinical collaboration.

A responsible program should:

• Define the indication and diagnostic task

• Establish scanner-specific acquisition and reconstruction parameters

• Compare task-specific image quality with the previous protocol

• Monitor CTDIvol and DLP

• Track nondiagnostic examinations and repeat-scan rates

• Assess reader confidence and measurement reproducibility

• Periodically audit diagnostic performance and relevant outcomes

• Reassess protocols after equipment, software, or reconstruction changes

Standardized reporting systems should be used when appropriate. Lung-RADS and Fleischner guidance can improve consistency in pulmonary nodule management. Structured reporting can also clarify the findings and limitations of stone examinations.

Protocols should be sufficiently transparent that referring clinicians understand what the examination can and cannot answer. Dose reduction and diagnostic adequacy should be treated as paired safety goals.

Limitations of the Evidence

The ULDCT literature is heterogeneous. Studies differ in scanner technology, radiation targets, reconstruction algorithms, patient size, reader experience, diagnostic thresholds, and reference standards.

Many investigations emphasize image quality, lesion detection, or radiologist confidence rather than patient-centered outcomes. Fewer studies determine whether ULDCT changes treatment decisions, reduces complications, prevents repeat imaging, improves antimicrobial stewardship, or improves long-term outcomes.

Generalizability is another limitation. A protocol developed on a modern scanner with advanced reconstruction may not perform similarly on older equipment. A protocol that performs well in a controlled research setting may be less reliable in a busy emergency department when motion, obesity, hardware artifact, or broad diagnostic uncertainty is present.

The evidence is also uneven across indications. Urolithiasis and selected pulmonary applications have relatively strong support as reduced-dose use cases. Broad abdominal pain, vascular emergencies, oncologic staging, and subtle inflammatory disease remain poor candidates unless a reduced-dose protocol has been validated specifically for the task.

Future Directions

The future of ULDCT will likely depend more on task-based image-quality metrics than on generic dose targets. Clinically useful research should evaluate diagnostic accuracy, false-positive and false-negative findings, measurement reproducibility, management decisions, repeat imaging, and patient outcomes across dose levels.

Photon-counting detector CT and deep-learning reconstruction may broaden the range of diagnostic tasks that can be performed at lower doses. Both technologies require rigorous validation. Artificial intelligence may help reduce noise, detect lesions, standardize measurements, or support protocol selection, but it may also introduce new failure modes.

Lower dose combined with artificial intelligence is not automatically safer. Safety depends on demonstrated diagnostic performance, appropriate clinical integration, quality oversight, and recognition of algorithm-specific limitations.

Dose registries, diagnostic reference levels, electronic quality measures, and local audit systems will continue to shape practice. Strong programs will monitor both excessive radiation exposure and inadequate image quality because either can harm patients.

References

1. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. (2023). Lung cancer screening CT protocols, version 6.0.

2. American College of Radiology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, & Society for Pediatric Radiology. (2023). ACR-AAPM-SPR practice parameter for diagnostic reference levels and achievable doses in medical X-ray imaging.

3. American College of Radiology. (2022). Lung-RADS assessment categories, version 2022.

4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2022). National coverage determination: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, 210.14.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2026). Excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic computed tomography in adults, CMS1074v3.

6. Christensen, J., Prosper, A. E., Wu, C. C., Chung, J., Lee, E., Elicker, B., Hunsaker, A. R., Petranovic, M., Sandler, K. L., Stiles, B., Mazzone, P., Yankelevitz, D., Aberle, D., Chiles, C., & Kazerooni, E. (2024). ACR Lung-RADS v2022: Assessment categories and management recommendations. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 21(3), 473-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2023.09.009. PMID: 37820837.

7. de Koning, H. J., van der Aalst, C. M., de Jong, P. A., Scholten, E. T., Nackaerts, K., Heuvelmans, M. A., Lammers, J. W. J., Weenink, C., Yousaf-Khan, U., Horeweg, N., van ‘t Westeinde, S., Prokop, M., Mali, W. P. T. M., Mohamed Hoesein, F. A. A., van Ooijen, P. M. A., Aerts, J. G. J. V., den Bakker, M. A., Thunnissen, E., Verschakelen, J., et al. (2020). Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382(6), 503-513. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793. PMID: 31995683.

8. European Association of Urology. (2026). EAU guidelines on urolithiasis.

9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). What are the radiation risks from CT?. Accessed July 28, 2026.

10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). White paper: Initiative to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure from medical imaging.

11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Medical X-ray imaging. Accessed July 28, 2026.

12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2024). 510(k) premarket notification: NAEOTOM Alpha with SOMARIS/10 syngo CT VB10, K233657.

13. Gupta, R. T., Kalisz, K., Blake, M. A., et al. (2023). ACR Appropriateness Criteria acute onset flank pain, suspicion of stone disease. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 20(11S), S456-S469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2023.08.020. PMID: 38040458.

14. Kanglie, M. M. N. P., van Engelen, T. S. R., van den Berk, I. A. H., et al. (2025). Diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose chest CT versus chest X-ray for acute nontraumatic pulmonary diseases. European Radiology, 35, 4836-4845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11223-3. PMID: 39881037.

15. Koetzier, L. R., Mastrodicasa, D., Szczykutowicz, T. P., van der Werf, N. R., Wang, A. S., Sandfort, V., van der Molen, A. J., Fleischmann, D., & Willemink, M. J. (2023). Deep learning image reconstruction for CT: Technical principles and clinical prospects. Radiology, 306(3), e221257. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.221257. PMID: 36719287.

16. Kroft, L. J. M., van der Velden, L., Girón, I. H., Roelofs, J. J. H., de Roos, A., & Geleijns, J. (2019). Added value of ultra-low-dose computed tomography, dose equivalent to chest X-ray radiography, for diagnosing chest pathology. Journal of Thoracic Imaging, 34(3), 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000404. PMID: 30870305.

17. MacMahon, H., Naidich, D. P., Goo, J. M., Lee, K. S., Leung, A. N. C., Mayo, J. R., Mehta, A. C., Ohno, Y., Powell, C. A., Prokop, M., Rubin, G. D., Schaefer-Prokop, C. M., Travis, W. D., Van Schil, P. E., & Bankier, A. A. (2017). Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: From the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology, 284(1), 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161659. PMID: 28240562.

18. McCollough, C. H., Rajendran, K., Baffour, F. I., et al. (2023). Clinical applications of photon-counting detector CT. European Radiology, 33(8), 5309-5320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09596-y. PMID: 37020069.

19. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle, D. R., Adams, A. M., Berg, C. D., Black, W. C., Clapp, J. D., Fagerstrom, R. M., Gareen, I. F., Gatsonis, C., Marcus, P. M., & Sicks, J. D. (2011). Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(5), 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. PMID: 21714641.

20. Pan, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Wang, L. (2024). Detection, measurement, and diagnosis of lung nodules by ultra-low-dose CT in lung cancer screening: A systematic review. BJR Open, 6(1), tzae041. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjro/tzae041. PMID: 39665102.

21. Rodger, F., Roditi, G., & Aboumarzouk, O. M. (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of low- and ultra-low-dose CT for identification of urinary tract stones: A systematic review. Urologia Internationalis, 100(4), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488062. PMID: 29649823.

22. Tækker, M., Kristjánsdóttir, B., Graumann, O., Laursen, C. B., & Pietersen, P. I. (2021). Diagnostic accuracy of low-dose and ultra-low-dose CT in detection of chest pathology: A systematic review. Clinical Imaging, 74, 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.12.041. PMID: 33517021.

23. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2021). Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(10), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117. PMID: 33687470.

24. van den Berk, I. A. H., Kanglie, M. M. N. P., van Engelen, T. S. R., et al. (2023). Ultra-low-dose CT versus chest X-ray for patients suspected of pulmonary disease at the emergency department: A multicentre randomized clinical trial. Thorax, 78(5), 515-522. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218337. PMID: 35688623.

25. van den Berk, I. A. H., Lejeune, E. H., Kanglie, M. M. N. P., et al. (2023). The yield of chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest CT in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary infection without respiratory symptoms or signs. European Radiology, 33, 7294-7302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09664-3. PMID: 37115214.

26. Wassipaul, M., Schuetz, G. M., Nagel, H. D., et al. (2023). Diagnostic and clinical consequences of ultra-low-dose CT compared with chest radiography in patients with suspected nontraumatic pulmonary disease. eClinicalMedicine, 65, 102267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102267. PMID: 37876998.

27. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2017). Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Committee Opinion No. 723.

28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Pediatric X-ray imaging. Accessed July 28, 2026.