ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Deep-Learning-Based Image Denoising in Imaging of Urolithiasis: Assessment of Image Quality and Comparison to State-of-the-Art Iterative Reconstructions.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Image-domain deep learning denoising for low-dose chest CT on a single 128-slice CT platform: a retrospective image-quality assessment.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Radiomics-driven spectral profiling of six kidney stone types with monoenergetic CT reconstructions in photon-counting CT.European radiology · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Medical Image Quality Assessment.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Low-dose Computed Tomography Images Reconstructed Using Artificial Intelligence-based Adaptive Filtering for Denoising: A Comparison with Computed Tomography Reconstructed with Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the image quality and diagnostic accuracy of deep-learning-based image denoising reconstructions (DLIDs) to established iterative reconstructed algorithms in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of patients with suspected urolithiasis. LDCTs (CTDIvol, 2 mGy) of 76 patients (age: 40.3 ± 5.2 years, M/W: 51/25) with suspected urolithiasis were retrospectively included. Filtered-back projection (FBP), hybrid iterative and model-based iterative reconstruction (HIR/MBIR, respectively) were reconstructed. FBP images were processed using a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved DLID. ROIs were placed in renal parenchyma, fat, muscle and urinary bladder. Signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR/CNR, respectively) were calculated. Two radiologists evaluated image quality on five-point Likert scales and urinary stones. The results showed a progressive decrease in image noise from FBP, HIR and DLID to MBIR with significant differences between each method (
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.