ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2022
Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR) for ASPECT Scoring in Acute Stroke Patients Selection: Comparison to rCBV and Follow-Up Imaging.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep-learning reconstruction for noncontrast head computed tomography: Improved image quality and potential diagnostic impact in acute ischemic stroke.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- High relative cerebral blood volume is associated with good long term clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective cohort study.BMC neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) versus a hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) for initial and final Alberta Stroke Program Early Ct Score (ASPECT) scoring in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We hypothesized that MBIR designed for brain computed tomography (CT) could perform better than HIR for ASPECT scoring.
methodsAmong patients who had undergone CT perfusion for AIS between April 2018 and October 2019 with a follow-up imaging within 7 days, we designed a cohort of representative ASPECTS. Two readers assessed regional-cerebral-blood-volume-ASPECT (rCBV-ASPECTS) on the initial exam and final-ASPECTS on the follow-up non-contrast-CT (NCCT) in consensus. Four readers performed independently MBIR and HIR ASPECT scoring on baseline NCCT.
resultsIn total, 294 hemispheres from 147 participants (average age of 69.59 ± 15.63 SD) were analyzed. Overall raters' agreement between rCBV-map and MBIR and HIR ranged from moderate to moderate (κ = 0.54 to κ = 0.57) with HIR and moderate to substantial (κ = 0.52 to κ = 0.74) with MBIR. Overall raters' agreement between follow-up imaging and HIR/MBIR ranged from moderate to moderate (κ = 0.55 to κ = 0.59) with HIR and moderate to almost perfect (κ = 0.48 to κ = 0.82) with MBIR.
conclusionsASPECT scoring with MBIR more closely matched with initial and final infarct extent than classical HIR NCCT 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.