ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2021
Study on Model Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm vs. Filter Back Projection Algorithm for Diagnosis of Acute Cerebral Infarction Using CT Images.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to explore the application value of computed tomography (CT) perfusion (CTP) imaging based on the iterative model reconstruction (IMR) in the diagnosis of acute cerebral infarction (ACI). 80 patients with ACI, admitted to hospital, were selected as the research objects and divided randomly into a routine treatment group (group A) and a low-dose group (group B) (each group with 40 patients). Patients in group A were scanned at 80 kV-150 mAs, and the traditional filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm was employed to reconstruct the images; besides, 80 kV-30 mAs was adopted to scan the patients in group B, and the images were reconstructed by IMR1, IMR2, IMR3, iDose4 (a kind of hybrid iterative reconstruction technology), and FBP, respectively. The application values of different algorithms were evaluated by CTP based on the collected CTP images of patients and detecting indicators. The results showed that the gray and white matter CT value, SD value, SNR, CNR, and subjective image scores of patients in group B were basically consistent with those of group A (
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.