ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2016
Evaluation of static and dynamic perfusion cardiac computed tomography for quantitation and classification tasks.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic myocardial CT perfusion imaging-state of the art.European radiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac computed tomography (CT) acquisitions for perfusion assessment can be performed in a dynamic or static mode. Either method may be used for a variety of clinical tasks, including (1) stratifying patients into categories of ischemia and (2) using a quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF) estimate to evaluate disease severity. In this simulation study, we compare method performance on these classification and quantification tasks for matched radiation dose levels and for different flow states, patient sizes, and injected contrast levels. Under conditions simulated, the dynamic method has low bias in MBF estimates (0 to [Formula: see text]) compared to linearly interpreted static assessment (0.45 to [Formula: see text]), making it more suitable for quantitative estimation. At matched radiation dose levels, receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the static method, with its high bias but generally lower variance, had superior performance ([Formula: see text]) in stratifying patients, especially for larger patients and lower contrast doses [area under the curve [Formula: see text] to 96 versus 0.86]. We also demonstrate that static assessment with a correctly tuned exponential relationship between the apparent CT number and MBF has superior quantification performance to static assessment with a linear relationship and to dynamic assessment. However, tuning the exponential relationship to the patient and scan characteristics will likely prove challenging. This study demonstrates that the selection and optimization of static or dynamic acquisition modes should depend on the specific clinical task.
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.