Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33449305›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2021

Deep learning image reconstruction for improvement of image quality of abdominal computed tomography: comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction.

Yasutaka Ichikawa, Yoshinori Kanii, Akio Yamazaki, Naoki Nagasawa, Motonori Nagata, Masaki Ishida, Kakuya Kitagawa, Hajime Sakuma

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yasutaka IchikawaDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan. yasutaka@clin.medic.mie-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6383-207X
Yoshinori KaniiDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Akio YamazakiDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Naoki NagasawaDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Motonori NagataDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Masaki IshidaDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Kakuya KitagawaDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.
Hajime SakumaDepartment of Radiology, Mie University Hospital, 2-174 Edobashi, Tsu, Mie, 514-8507, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the usefulness of the deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) to enhance the image quality of abdominal CT, compared to iterative reconstruction technique.

methodPre and post-contrast abdominal CT images in 50 patients were reconstructed with 2 different algorithms: hybrid iterative reconstruction (hybrid IR: ASiR-V 50%) and DLIR (TrueFidelity). Standard deviation of attenuation in normal liver parenchyma was measured as the image noise on pre and post-contrast CT. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for the aorta, and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver were calculated on post-contrast CT. The overall image quality was graded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

resultsThe image noise was significantly decreased by DLIR compared to hybrid-IR [hybrid IR, median 8.3 Hounsfield unit (HU) (interquartile range (IQR) 7.6-9.2 HU); DLIR, median 5.2 HU (IQR 4.6-5.8), P < 0.0001 for post-contrast CT]. The CNR and SNR were significantly improved by DLIR [CNR, median 4.5 (IQR 3.8-5.6) vs 7.3 (IQR 6.2-8.8), P < 0.0001; SNR, median 9.4 (IQR 8.3-10.1) vs 15.0 (IQR 13.2-16.4), P < 0.0001]. The overall image quality score was also higher for DLIR compared to hybrid-IR (hybrid IR 3.1 ± 0.6 vs DLIR 4.6 ± 0.5, P < 0.0001 for post-contrast CT).

conclusionsImage noise, overall image quality, CNR and SNR for abdominal CT images are improved with DLIR compared to hybrid IR.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedRadiation DosageRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, AbdominalRetrospective StudiesSignal-To-Noise RatioTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbdomenComputed tomographyDeep learning image reconstructionImage noiseImage quality

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.