ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Detection of urinary tract calculi on CT images reconstructed with deep learning algorithms.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Literature Review of 3D Deep Learning Techniques in Computed Tomography Reconstruction.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and CT in abdominal imaging: image reconstruction and beyond.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Deep-Learning-Based Image Denoising in Imaging of Urolithiasis: Assessment of Image Quality and Comparison to State-of-the-Art Iterative Reconstructions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Influence of a Deep Learning Noise Reduction on the CT Values, Image Noise and Characterization of Kidney and Ureter Stones.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning Computed Tomography (CT) reconstruction (DLR) algorithms promise to improve image quality but the impact on clinical diagnostic performance remains to be demonstrated. We aimed to compare DLR to standard iterative reconstruction for detection of urolithiasis by unenhanced CT in children and young adults.
methodsThis was an IRB approved retrospective study involving post-hoc reconstruction of clinically acquired unenhanced abdomen/pelvis CT scans. Images were reconstructed with six different manufacturer-standard DLR algorithms and reformatted in 3 planes (axial, sagittal, and coronal) at 3 mm intervals. De-identified reconstructions were loaded as independent examinations for review by 3 blinded radiologists (R1, R2, R3) tasked with identifying and measuring all stones. Results were compared to the clinical iterative reconstruction images as a reference standard. IntraClass correlation coefficients and kappa (k) statistics were used to quantify agreement.
resultsCT data for 14 patients (mean age: 17.3 ± 3.4 years, 5 males and 9 females, weight class: 31-70 kg (n = 6), 71-100 kg (n = 7), > 100 kg (n = 1)) were reconstructed into 84 total exams. 7 patients had urinary tract calculi. Interobserver agreement on the presence of any urinary tract calculus was substantial to almost perfect (k = 0.71-1) for all DLR algorithms. Agreement with the reference standard on number of calculi was excellent (ICC = 0.78-0.96) and agreement on the size of the largest calculus was fair to excellent (ICC = 0.51-0.97) depending on reviewer and DLR algorithm.
conclusionDeep learning reconstruction of unenhanced CT images allows similar renal stone detectability compared to iterative reconstruction.
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.