ArticlePediatric radiology2020
Comparison of quantitative image quality of cardiac computed tomography between raw-data-based and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms with an emphasis on image sharpness.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of single-phase DECT as an alternative to triple-phase CT for imaging-defined risk factors assessment in neuroblastoma for dose reduction.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Low-dose lung CT: Optimizing diagnostic radiation dose - A phantom study.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- Complimentary Cardiac Computed Tomography Ventricular Volumetry-Derived Metrics of Severity in Patients with Ebstein Anomaly: Comparison with Echocardiography-Based Severity Indices.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Contrast-Enhanced CT Protocol for the Fontan Pathway: Comparison Between 1- and 3-Minute Scan Delays.Pediatric cardiology · 2022Article
- Recent technologies in cardiac imaging.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
- Intraindividual evaluation of effects of image filter function on image quality in coronary computed tomography angiography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Echocardiographic Left Atrial Volume Measurement with Pulmonary Vein Comparison.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImage sharpness is commonly degraded on cardiac CT images reconstructed using iterative reconstruction algorithms.
objectiveTo compare the image quality of cardiac CT between raw-data-based and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms developed by the same CT vendor in children and young adults with congenital heart disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 29 patients with congenital heart disease, we reconstructed 39 cardiac CT datasets using raw-data-based and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms. We performed quantitative analysis of image sharpness using distance
resultsCT attenuation did not show significant differences between the algorithms (P>0.05) except in the aorta. Image noise was small but significantly higher in the model-based algorithm than in the raw-data-based algorithm (4.8±2.3 Hounsfield units [HU] vs. 4.7±2.1 HU, P<0.014). Signal-to-noise ratio (110.2±50.9 vs. 108.4±50.4, P=0.050) and contrast-to-noise ratio (91.0±45.7 vs. 89.6±45.1, P=0.063) showed marginal significance between the two algorithms. The model-based algorithm showed a significantly smaller distance
conclusionCompared with the raw-data-based algorithm, the model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm demonstrated better image sharpness and higher image noise on cardiac CT in patients with congenital heart disease.
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.