ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Myocardial extracellular volume quantification in cardiac CT: comparison of the effects of two different iterative reconstruction algorithms with MRI as a reference standard.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- CT for the evaluation of myocardial extracellular volume with MRI as reference: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2023Pooled it
- Myocardial extracellular volume fraction in cardiac CT: comparison of deep learning reconstruction and iterative reconstruction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Impact of contrast medium volume on myocardial extracellular volume measurement accuracy in first-generation photon-counting detector CT.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Imaging features of wild-type transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy in gated and non-gated contrast-enhanced CT.European radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical Significance of Extracellular Volume of Myocardium (ECV) Assessed by Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Myocardial extracellular volume quantification in cardiac amyloidosis: a comparative study between cardiac computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2024Article
- Measurement of myocardial extracellular volume using cardiac dual-energy computed tomography in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy: a comparison of different methods.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Cardiac computed tomography-derived myocardial tissue characterization after anthracycline treatment.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Quantitative analysis of late iodine enhancement using dual-layer spectral detector computed tomography: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Coronary artery calcification and epicardial adipose tissue as independent predictors of mortality in COVID-19.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Cardiac Imaging in Athlete's Heart: The Role of the Radiologist.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Computed tomography-derived myocardial extracellular volume: an early biomarker of cardiotoxicity in esophageal cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.Insights into imaging · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the effects of hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) that incorporates a beam-hardening model for myocardial extracellular volume (ECV) quantification by cardiac CT using MRI as a reference standard.
methodsIn this retrospective study, a total of 34 patients were evaluated using cardiac CT and MRI. Paired CT image sets were created using HIR and MBIR with a beam-hardening model. We calculated mean absolute differences and correlations between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI via Pearson correlation analysis. In addition, we performed qualitative analysis of image noise and beam-hardening artifacts on postcontrast images using a four-point scale: 1 = extensive, 2 = strong, 3 = mild, and 4 = minimal.
resultsThe mean absolute difference between the ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for HIR (MBIR 3.74 ± 3.59%; HIR 4.95 ± 3.48%, p = 0.034). MBIR improved the correlation between the ECV derived from CT and MRI when compared with HIR (MBIR, r = 0.60, p < 0.001; HIR, r = 0.47, p = 0.006). In qualitative analysis, MBIR significantly reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts when compared with HIR ([image noise, MBIR 3.4 ± 0.7; HIR 2.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001], [beam-hardening artifacts, MBIR 3.8 ± 0.4; HIR 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001]).
conclusionsMBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts and improved myocardial ECV quantification when compared with HIR using MRI as a reference standard. KEY POINTS: • MBIR with a beam-hardening model effectively reduced image noise and beam-hardening artifacts. • The mean absolute difference between the global mid-ventricular ECV derived from CT and MRI for MBIR was significantly smaller than that for conventional HIR. • MBIR provided more accurate myocardial CT number and improved ECV quantification when compared with HIR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31471751What 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.