ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Correction to: Deep learning reconstruction improves image quality of abdominal ultra-high-resolution CT.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of the image quality between deep learning reconstruction algorithm and iDose4 using low dose abdominopelvic computed tomography for individuals with normal BMI.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Exploration of the fetal skeleton by ultra-low-dose computed tomography: guidelines from the Fetal Imaging Task Force of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2023Article
- Deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for abdominal multidetector CT at different tube voltages: assessment of image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study.European radiology · 2022Article
- A phantom study comparing low-dose CT physical image quality from five different CT scanners.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- AI Techniques for COVID-19.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The original version of this article, published on 11 April 2019, unfortunately, contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: The image in Fig. 3c was wrong. The corrected figure is given below. The original article has been corrected.
Identifiers
31134364What 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.