Trial reportNeuroradiology2014
3D movement correction of CT brain perfusion image data of patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Trial report in Neuroradiology, 2014. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardizing the estimation of ischemic regions can harmonize CT perfusion stroke imaging.European radiology · 2024Article
- Inferring CT perfusion parameters and uncertainties using a Bayesian approach.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Automated Prediction of Ischemic Brain Tissue Fate from Multiphase Computed Tomographic Angiography in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Using Machine Learning.Journal of stroke · 2021Article
- Comparing dual energy CT and subtraction CT on a phantom: which one provides the best contrast in iodine maps for sub-centimetre details?European radiology · 2018Article
- Added value of multiphase CTA imaging for thrombus perviousness assessment.Neuroradiology · 2018Article
- Dynamic CT perfusion image data compression for efficient parallel processing.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHead movement during CT brain perfusion (CTP) acquisition can deteriorate the accuracy of CTP analysis. Most CTP software packages can only correct in-plane movement and are limited to small ranges. The purpose of this study is to validate a novel 3D correction method for head movement during CTP acquisition.
methodsThirty-five CTP datasets that were classified as defective due to head movement were included in this study. All CTP time frames were registered with non-contrast CT data using a 3D rigid registration method. Location and appearance of ischemic area in summary maps derived from original and registered CTP datasets were qualitative compared with follow-up non-contrast CT. A quality score (QS) of 0 to 3 was used to express the degree of agreement. Furthermore, experts compared the quality of both summary maps and assigned the improvement score (IS) of the CTP analysis, ranging from -2 (much worse) to 2 (much better).
resultsSummary maps generated from corrected CTP significantly agreed better with appearance of infarct on follow-up CT with mean QS 2.3 versus mean QS 1.8 for summary maps from original CTP (P = 0.024). In comparison to original CTP data, correction resulted in a quality improvement with average IS 0.8: 17 % worsened (IS = -2, -1), 20 % remained unchanged (IS = 0), and 63 % improved (IS = +1, +2).
conclusionThe proposed 3D movement correction improves the summary map quality for CTP datasets with severe head movement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.