ArticleActa radiologica open2017
Dual-energy computed tomography angiography: virtual calcified plaque subtraction in a vascular phantom.
Article in Acta radiologica open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Microbiome-Neurodegeneration Interface: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Future Directions.Cells · 2026Review
- Evaluating acoustic and thermal properties of a plaque phantom.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
- Biomimicking Atherosclerotic Vessels: A Relevant and (Yet) Sub-Explored Topic.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Multi-Modality Imaging of Atheromatous Plaques in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Integrating Molecular and Imaging Markers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Investigating atherosclerotic plaque phantoms for ultrasound therapy.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- Quantitative benchmarking of iodine imaging for two CT spectral imaging technologies: a phantom study.European radiology experimental · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaterial decomposition of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) enables subtraction of calcified plaque. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of lumen area measurement in calcified plaque by subtraction of DECT and to determine the effect of contrast material concentration, lumen diameter, density, and thickness of calcified plaque for the measurement. MATERIAL AND
methodsVessel phantoms were made with six lumen diameters (5.7, 4.9, 3.9, 3.0, 1.9, and 1.3 mm) and six types of calcified plaques with three densities and two thicknesses were attached. CT scans were performed with three contrast material concentrations (62, 111, and 170 mg iodine/mL). Lumen area discrepancy (AD) was calculated by subtracting the measured lumen area from a reference value. The lumen area underestimation percentage (AU), defined as (AD/reference value) × 100, was calculated. General linear model analysis was used to test the effect of variables for log-transformed AU (ln_AU).
resultsThe AD and AU was calculated to be 6.1 ± 4.8 mm
conclusionCalcified plaque subtraction in DECT substantially underestimates measurements of lumen area. Higher enhancement in larger vessels ensures more accurate subtraction of calcified plaque.
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.