Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35502368›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Deep learning reconstruction allows low-dose imaging while maintaining image quality: comparison of deep learning reconstruction and hybrid iterative reconstruction in contrast-enhanced abdominal CT.

Akio Tamura, Eisuke Mukaida, Yoshitaka Ota, Iku Nakamura, Kazumasa Arakita, Kunihiro Yoshioka

Abstract 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 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer risk associated with CT imaging: quantifying the evidence, addressing misconceptions, and optimizing risk communication.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Akio TamuraDepartment of Radiology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate, Japan.
Eisuke MukaidaDepartment of Radiology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate, Japan.
Yoshitaka OtaDivision of Central Radiology, Iwate Medical University Hospital, Iwate, Japan.
Iku NakamuraIwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate, Japan.
Kazumasa ArakitaHealthcare IT Development Center, Canon Medical Systems Corporation, Otawara, Japan.
Kunihiro YoshiokaDepartment of Radiology, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to compare the radiation dose and image quality of a low-dose abdominal computed tomography (CT) protocol reconstructed with deep learning reconstruction (DLR) with those of a routine-dose protocol reconstructed with hybrid-iterative reconstruction. This retrospective study enrolled 71 patients [61 men; average age, 71.9 years; mean body mass index (BMI), 24.3 kg/m

Indexed as

advanced intelligent clear-IQ engine (AiCE)Computed tomography (CT)contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)deep learning reconstruction (DLR)noise reduction

Identifiers

PMID35502368
PMCPMC9014148

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.