ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2020
Evaluation of an integrated 3D-printed phantom for coronary CT angiography using iterative reconstruction algorithm.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Filament deposition modeling quality assurance testing for the medical physicist.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- CT Image Features Based on the Reconstruction Algorithm for Continuous Blood Purification Combined with Nursing Intervention in the Treatment of Severe Acute Pancreatitis.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Intelligent Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Algorithm-Based Ultrasound-Guided Nerve Block in Intraoperative Anesthesia and Postoperative Analgesia of Orthopedic Surgery.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of an integrated 3D-printed phantom for coronary CT angiography using iterative reconstruction algorithm.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2020Article
- Increasing iterative reconstruction strength at low tube voltage in coronary CT angiography protocols using 3D-printed and CatphanJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction3D-printed imaging phantoms are now increasingly available and used for computed tomography (CT) dose optimisation study and image quality analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the integrated 3D-printed cardiac insert phantom when evaluating iterative reconstruction (IR) algorithm in coronary CT angiography (CCTA) protocols.
methodsThe 3D-printed cardiac insert phantom was positioned into a chest phantom and scanned with a 16-slice CT scanner. Acquisitions were performed with CCTA protocols using 120 kVp at four different tube currents, 300, 200, 100 and 50 mA (protocols A, B, C and D, respectively). The image data sets were reconstructed with a filtered back projection (FBP) and three different IR algorithm strengths. The image quality metrics of image noise, signal-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated for each protocol.
resultsDecrease in dose levels has significantly increased the image noise, compared to FBP of protocol A (P < 0.001). As a result, the SNR and CNR were significantly decreased (P < 0.001). For FBP, the highest noise with poor SNR and CNR was protocol D with 19.0 ± 1.6 HU, 18.9 ± 2.5 and 25.1 ± 3.6, respectively. For IR algorithm, the highest strength (AIDR3D
conclusionsThe use of IR algorithm and increasing its strengths have reduced noise significantly and thus increased the SNR and CNR when compared to FBP. Therefore, this integrated 3D-printed phantom approach could be used for dose optimisation study and image quality analysis in CCTA protocols.
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.