ArticleInsights into imaging2022
Inter-observer agreement and image quality of model-based algorithm applied to the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System score.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- CAD-RADS: A Standardized Reporting System for Coronary CT Angiography.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026Review
- ChatGPT vs Gemini: Comparative Accuracy and Efficiency in CAD-RADS Score Assignment from Radiology Reports.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Moving towards a uniform diagnosis of coronary artery disease on coronary CTA : Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System 2.0.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Review
- Prognostic significance of CAD-RADS for patients with suspected coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Radiology advances · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the inter-observer agreement of the CAD-RADS reporting system and compare image quality between model-based iterative reconstruction algorithm (MBIR) and standard iterative reconstruction algorithm (IR) of low-dose cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA).
methodsOne-hundred-sixty patients undergone a 256-slice MDCT scanner using low-dose CCTA combined with prospective ECG-gated techniques were enrolled. CCTA protocols were reconstructed with both MBIR and IR. Each study was evaluated by two readers using the CAD-RADS lexicon. Vessels enhancement, image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR), and contrast-to-noise (CNR) were computed in the axial native images, and inter-observer agreement was assessed. Radiation dose exposure as dose-length product (DLP) and effective dose were finally reported.
resultsThe reliability analysis between the two readers was almost perfect for all CAD-RADS standard categories. Moreover, a significantly higher value of subjective qualitative analysis, SNR, and CNR in MBIR images compared to IR were found, due to a lower noise level (all p < 0.05). The mean DLP measured was 63.9 mGy*cm, and the mean effective dose was 0.9 mSv.
conclusionInter-observer agreement of CAD-RADS was excellent confirming the importance, the feasibility, and the reproducibility of the CAD-RADS scoring system for CCTA. Moreover, lower noise and higher image quality with MBIR compared to IR were found. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: MBIR, by reducing noise and improving image quality, can help a better assessment of CAD-RADS, in comparison with standard IR algorithm.
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.