Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26285899›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016

The effect of iterative model reconstruction on coronary artery calcium quantification.

Bálint Szilveszter, Hesham Elzomor, Mihály Károlyi, Márton Kolossváry, Rolf Raaijmakers, Kálmán Benke, Csilla Celeng, Andrea Bartykowszki, Zsolt Bagyura, Árpád Lux and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Updates on CAD risk assessment: using the coronary artery calcium score in combination with traditional risk factors.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The role of advanced reconstruction algorithms in cardiac CT.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2017
    Review
  17. Cardiovascular imaging 2016 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Topical issue: multimodality imaging in atherosclerosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bálint SzilveszterMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Hesham ElzomorMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Mihály KárolyiMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Márton KolossváryMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Rolf RaaijmakersPhilips HealthTech, Veenpluis 4-6, 5684 PC, Best, The Netherlands.
Kálmán BenkeMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Csilla CelengMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Andrea BartykowszkiMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Zsolt BagyuraMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Árpád LuxMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Béla MerkelyMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary.
Pál Maurovich-HorvatMTA-SE Lendület Cardiovascular Imaging Research Group, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 68 Varosmajor ut, Budapest, 1122, Hungary. p.maurovich-horvat@cirg.hu.
Semmelweis University · HUPhilips (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring with computed tomography (CT) is an established tool for quantifying calcified atherosclerotic plaque burden. Despite the widespread use of novel image reconstruction techniques in CT, the effect of iterative model reconstruction on CAC score remains unclear. We sought to assess the impact of iterative model based reconstruction (IMR) on coronary artery calcium quantification as compared to the standard filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm and hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR). In addition, we aimed to simulate the impact of iterative reconstruction techniques on calcium scoring based risk stratification of a larger asymptomatic population. We studied 63 individuals who underwent CAC scoring. Images were reconstructed with FBP, HIR and IMR and CAC scores were measured. We estimated the cardiovascular risk reclassification rate of IMR versus HIR and FBP in a larger asymptomatic population (n = 504). The median CAC scores were 147.7 (IQR 9.6-582.9), 107.0 (IQR 5.9-526.6) and 115.1 (IQR 9.3-508.3) for FBP, HIR and IMR, respectively. The HIR and IMR resulted in lower CAC scores as compared to FBP (both p < 0.001), however there was no difference between HIR and IMR (p = 0.855). The CAC score decreased by 7.2 % in HIR and 7.3 % in IMR as compared to FBP, resulting in a risk reclassification rate of 2.4 % for both HIR and IMR. The utilization of IMR for CAC scoring reduces the measured calcium quantity. However, the CAC score based risk stratification demonstrated modest reclassification in IMR and HIR versus FBP.

Indexed as

AgedAlgorithmsComputer SimulationCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultidetector Computed TomographyPlaque, AtheroscleroticPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRisk AssessmentComputed tomographyCoronary artery calcium scoringCoronary artery diseaseIterative model reconstructionRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID26285899
OpenAlexW1134092843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.