ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013
The effect of iterative image reconstruction algorithms on the feasibility of automated plaque assessment in coronary CT angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic efficacy of model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm in an assessment of coronary artery in comparison with standard hybrid-Iterative reconstruction algorithm: dose reduction and image quality.La Radiologia medica · 2019Trial
- The role of advanced reconstruction algorithms in cardiac CT.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017Review
- Improved Estimation of Coronary Plaque and Luminal Attenuation Using a Vendor-specific Model-based Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm in Contrast-enhanced CT Coronary Angiography.Academic radiology · 2017Article
- Plaque assessment by coronary CT.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Review
- The effect of iterative model reconstruction on coronary artery calcium quantification.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016Article
- Iterative image reconstruction algorithms in coronary CT angiography improve the detection of lipid-core plaque--a comparison with histology.European radiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of adaptive statistical (ASIR) and model based (MBIR) iterative reconstruction algorithms on the feasibility of automated plaque assessment in coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) compared to filtered back projection reconstruction (FBPR) algorithm. Three ex vivo human donor hearts were imaged by CCTA and reconstructed with FBPR, ASIR and MBIR. Commercial plaque assessment software was applied for the automated delineation of the outer and inner vessel-wall boundaries. Manually corrections were performed where necessary and the percentages were compared between the reconstruction algorithms. In total 2,295 CCTA cross-sections with 0.5 mm increments were assessed (765 co-registered FBPR/ASIR/MBIR triplets). Any boundary corrections were performed in 31.0% of all cross-sections (N = 712). The percentage of corrected crosssections was lower for MBIR (24.1%) as compared to ASIR (32.4%, p = 0.0003) and FBPR (36.6%, p <0.0001), and marginal between ASIR/FBPR (p = 0.09). The benefit of MBIR over FBPR was associated with the presence of moderate and severe calcification (OR 2.9 and 5.7, p <0.0001; respectively). Using MBIR significantly reduced the need for vessel-wall boundary corrections compared to other reconstruction algorithms, particular at the site of calcifications. Thus, MBIR may improve the feasibility of automated plaque assessment in CCTA and potentially its clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23990390What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.