ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Comparative analysis of two mathematical algorithms for the calculation of computed tomography perfusion parameters in the healthy and diseased pancreas.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. 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.
- Comparative analysis of two mathematical algorithms for the calculation of computed tomography perfusion parameters in the healthy and diseased pancreas.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe maximum slope (MS) and deconvolution (DC) algorithms are commonly used to post-process computed tomography perfusion (CTP) data. This study aims to analyze the differences between MS and DC algorithms for the calculation of pancreatic CTP parameters.
methodsThe pancreatic CTP data of 57 patients were analyzed using MS and DC algorithms. Two blinded radiologists calculated pancreatic blood volume (BV) and blood flow (BF). Interobserver correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the consistency between two radiologists. Paired t-tests, Pearson linear correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to evaluate the correlation and consistency of the CTP parameters between the two algorithms.
resultsAmong the 30 subjects with normal pancreas, the BV values in the three pancreatic regions were higher in the case of the MS algorithm than in the case of the DC algorithm (t = 39.35, p < 0.001), and the BF values in the three pancreatic regions were slightly higher for the MS algorithm than for the DC algorithm (t = 2.19, p = 0.031). Similarly, among the 27 patients with acute pancreatitis, the BV values obtained using the MS methods were higher than those obtained using the DC methods (t = 54.14, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the BF values were higher with the MS methods than the DC methods (t = 8.45, p < 0.001). Besides, Pearson linear correlation and Bland-Altman analysis showed that the BF and BV values showed a good correlation and a bad consistency between the two algorithms.
conclusionsThe BF and BV values measured using MS and DC algorithms had a good correlation but were not consistent.
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.