ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2022
Comparison of visibility of in-stent restenosis between conventional- and ultra-high spatial resolution computed tomography: coronary arterial phantom study.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolution and Clinical Impact of Deep Learning Technologies in Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- High-resolution deep learning reconstruction for coronary CTA: compared efficacy of stenosis evaluation with other methods at in vitro and in vivo studies.European radiology · 2025Article
- Dual-source photon-counting computed tomography for coronary in-stent observation: influence of heart rate and virtual monoenergetic image.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Improvement of coronary stent visualization using ultra-high-resolution photon-counting detector CT.European radiology · 2024Article
- Image Follow-Up After Flow Diverter Treatment Using Only Ultra-High Resolution CT Angiography with Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction: A Case Report.Yonago acta medica · 2024Article
- Coronary computed tomography angiographic detection of in-stent restenosis via deep learning reconstruction: a feasibility study.European radiology · 2024Article
- Utility of follow-up ultra-high-resolution CT angiography with model-based iterative reconstruction after flow diverter treatment for cerebral aneurysms.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Current State of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Applications for Head and Neck MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical applications of artificial intelligence in liver imaging.La Radiologia medica · 2023Review
- Impact of a new deep-learning-based reconstruction algorithm on image quality in ultra-high-resolution CT: clinical observational and phantom studies.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purposes of this experimental study were to compare the quantitative and qualitative visibility of in-stent restenosis between conventional-resolution CT (CRCT) and ultra-high-resolution CT (U-HRCT) and to investigate the effects of the image reconstruction techniques on the visualization of in-stent restenosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA vessel tube with non-calcified plaque in a 3.0-mm stent was scanned by using CRCT and U-HRCT at 4 stent directions (0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees) to the through-plane direction. Hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR); model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR); deep-learning-based reconstruction (DLR) were used as reconstruction methods. The lumen size was assessed using the full width at half maximum method, and image quality was visually evaluated using 4-point scale.
resultsU-HRCT had the significantly wider lumen sizes and narrower stent strut thickness than CRCT in three types of the reconstruction methods (P < 0.01). The lumen sizes for U-HRCT with 90 degrees were narrower than those with the other angle directions regardless of the reconstruction methods. Visual score was significantly higher for U-HRCT than CRCT (3.2 ± 0.7 vs 2.0 ± 0.4, P < 0.001).
conclusionsU-HRCT quantitatively and qualitatively provided better visualization of in-stent restenosis compared to CRCT. Image quality of U-HRCT may be affected by stent angle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34586581What 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.