Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993074›Full record

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.

Joël Greffier, Djamel Dabli, Aymeric Hamard, Asmaa Belaouni, Philippe Akessoul, Julien Frandon, Jean-Paul Beregi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. X-ray data reconstruction from incomplete data sampling.Journal of applied crystallography · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joël GreffierDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Djamel DabliDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Aymeric HamardDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Asmaa BelaouniDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Philippe AkessoulDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Julien FrandonDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Jean-Paul BeregiDepartment of Medical Imaging, CHU Nimes, Univ Montpellier, Medical Imaging Group Nîmes, EA 2992, Nîmes, France.
Université de Montpellier · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRDMS Imaging (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

computed tomography scan (CT scan)deep learning image reconstruction algorithmiterative reconstruction algorithmTask-based image quality assessment

Identifiers

PMID34993074
PMCPMC8666764
OpenAlexW3188002299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.