ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Evaluation of the effect of image noise on CT perfusion measurements using digital perfusion phantoms.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Model based noise correction enhances the accuracy of pancreatic CT perfusion blood flow measurements.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pancreatic CT perfusion: quantitative meta-analysis of disease discrimination, protocol development, and effect of CT parameters.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Dose Reduction of Dynamic Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging by Tube Voltage Change: Investigation in a Swine Model.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of Renal Blood Flow Using Maximum Slope-Based Computed Tomography Perfusion and Ultrasound Flow Probe in Healthy Dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the influence of image noise on computed tomography (CT) perfusion studies, CT perfusion software algorithms were evaluated for susceptibility to image noise and results applied to clinical perfusion studies.
methodsDigital perfusion phantoms were generated using a published deconvolution model to create time-attenuation curves (TACs) for 16 different combinations of blood flow (BF; 30/60/90/120 ml/100 ml/min) and flow extraction product (FEP; 10/20/30/40 ml/100 ml/min) corresponding to values encountered in clinical studies. TACs were distorted with Gaussian noise at 50 different strengths to approximate image noise, performing 200 repetitions for each noise level. A total of 160,000 TACs were evaluated by measuring BF and FEP with CT perfusion software, comparing results for the maximum slope and Patlak models with those obtained with a deconvolution model. To translate results to clinical practice, data of 23 patients from a CT perfusion study were assessed for image noise, and the accuracy of reported CT perfusion measurements was estimated.
resultsPerfusion measurements depend on image noise as means and standard deviations of BF and FEP over repetitions increase with increasing image noise, especially for low BF and FEP values. BF measurements derived by deconvolution show larger standard deviations than those performed with the maximum slope model. Image noise in the evaluated CT perfusion study was 26.46 ± 3.52 HU, indicating possible overestimation of BF by up to 85% in a clinical setting.
conclusionsMeasurements of perfusion parameters depend heavily upon the magnitude of image noise, which has to be taken into account during selection of acquisition parameters and interpretation of results, e.g., as a quantitative imaging biomarker. KEY POINTS: • CT perfusion results depend heavily upon the magnitude of image noise. • Different CT perfusion models react differently to the presence of image noise. • Blood flow may be overestimated by 85% in clinical CT perfusion studies.
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.