ArticleMedicine2018
Tradeoff between noise reduction and inartificial visualization in a model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm on coronary computed tomography angiography.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of four computed tomography reconstruction algorithms using a coronary artery phantom.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of visibility of in-stent restenosis between conventional- and ultra-high spatial resolution computed tomography: coronary arterial phantom study.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Can fully iterative reconstruction technique enable routine abdominal CT at less than 1 mSv?European journal of radiology open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the image quality performance of coronary CT angiography (CTA) under the different settings of forward-projected model-based iterative reconstruction solutions (FIRST).Thirty patients undergoing coronary CTA were included. Each image was reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR-3D), and 2 model-based iterative reconstructions including FIRST-body and FIRST-cardiac sharp (CS). CT number and noise were measured in the coronary vessels and plaque. Subjective image-quality scores were obtained for noise and structure visibility.In the objective image analysis, FIRST-body produced the significantly highest contrast-to-noise ratio. Regarding subjective image quality, FIRST-CS had the highest score for structure visibility, although the image noise score was inferior to that of FIRST-body.In conclusion, FIRST provides significant improvements in objective and subjective image quality compared with FBP and AIDR-3D. FIRST-body effectively reduces image noise, but the structure visibility with FIRST-CS was superior to FIRST-body.
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.