ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
Effect of a new deep learning image reconstruction algorithm for abdominal computed tomography imaging on image quality and dose reduction compared with two iterative reconstruction algorithms: a phantom study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning reconstruction combined with contrast-enhancement boost in dual-low dose CT pulmonary angiography: a two-center prospective trial.European radiology · 2025Trial
- Fibre phantom generation using FibreSimulator: an open-source Python tool.Journal of synchrotron radiation · 2026Article
- Phantom-based performance comparison of two commercial deep learning CT reconstruction algorithms with super- and normal-resolution settings.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Deep learning image reconstruction optimizes coronary artery calcium quantification.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- X-ray data reconstruction from incomplete data sampling.Journal of applied crystallography · 2025Article
- Dose reduction in radiotherapy treatment planning CT via deep learning-based reconstruction: a single‑institution study.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Influence of deep learning-based super-resolution reconstruction on Agatston score.European radiology · 2025Article
- Application of deep learning reconstruction at prone position chest scanning of early interstitial lung disease.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Image quality assessment of artificial intelligence iterative reconstruction for low dose unenhanced abdomen: comparison with hybrid iterative reconstruction.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Observational
- Feasibility Study of Triple-low CCTA for Coronary Artery Disease Screening Combining Contrast Enhancement Boost and Deep Learning Reconstruction.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- A comparison of the image quality between deep learning reconstruction algorithm and iDose4 using low dose abdominopelvic computed tomography for individuals with normal BMI.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Image reconstruction method for incomplete CT projection based on self-guided image filtering.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- Enhancing image quality in computed tomography angiography follow-ups after endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparative study of reconstruction techniques.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Optimizing image quality and minimizing radiation dose in pediatric abdominal multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography: a study on CARE kV and CARE Dose 4D.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Validation of deep learning-based CT image reconstruction for treatment planning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Virtual Non-Contrast Spectral CT in Renal Masses: Is It Time to Discard Conventional Unenhanced Phase?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Image-quality characteristics in the longitudinal direction from different image-reconstruction algorithms during single-rotation volume acquisition on head computed tomography: A phantom study.Acta radiologica open · 2023Article
- Early results of ultra-low-dose CT-scan for extremity traumas in emergency room.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Unenhanced abdominal low-dose CT reconstructed with deep learning-based image reconstruction: image quality and anatomical structure depiction.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Future of Low-Dose Computed Tomography and Dual-Energy Computed Tomography in Axial Spondyloarthritis.Current rheumatology reports · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNew reconstruction algorithms based on deep learning have been developed to correct the image texture changes related to the use of iterative reconstruction algorithms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new deep learning image reconstruction [Advanced intelligent Clear-IQ Engine (AiCE)] algorithm on image-quality and dose reduction compared to a hybrid iterative reconstruction (AIDR 3D) algorithm and a model-based iterative reconstruction (FIRST) algorithm.
methodsAcquisitions were carried out using the ACR 464 phantom (and its body ring) at six dose levels (volume computed tomography dose index 15/10/7.5/5/2.5/1 mGy). Raw data were reconstructed using three levels (Mild/Standard/Strong) of AIDR 3D, of FIRST and AiCE. Noise-power-spectrum (NPS) and task-based transfer function (TTF) were computed. Detectability index was computed to model the detection of a small calcification (1.5-mm diameter and 500 HU) and a large mass in the liver (25-mm diameter and 120 HU).
resultsNPS peaks were lower with AiCE than with AIDR 3D (-41%±6% for all levels) or FIRST (-15%±6% for Strong level and -41%±11% for both other levels). The average NPS spatial frequency was lower with AICE than AIDR 3D (-9%±2% using Mild and -3%±2% using Strong) but higher than FIRST for Standard (6%±3%) and Strong (25%±3%) levels. For acrylic insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST, except for Mild level (-6%±6% and -13%±3%, respectively). For bone insert, values of TTF at 50 percent were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D but lower than FIRST (-19%±14%). For both simulated lesions, detectability index values were higher with AICE than AIDR 3D and FIRST (except for Strong level and for the small feature; -21%±14%). Using the Standard level, dose could be reduced by -79% for the small calcification and -57% for the large mass using AICE compared to AIDR 3D.
conclusionsThe new deep learning image reconstruction algorithm AiCE generates an image-quality with less noise and/or less smudged/smooth images and a higher detectability than the AIDR 3D or FIRST algorithms. The outcomes of our phantom study suggest a good potential of dose reduction using AiCE but it should be confirmed clinically in patients.
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.