ArticleNeuroradiology2024
Impact of temporal resolution on perfusion metrics, therapy decision, and radiation dose reduction in brain CT perfusion in patients with suspected stroke.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to the Editor: Cerebral CT perfusion dose: diagnostic reference levels should stimulate, not replace, optimization.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Understanding CT Perfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke: How Algorithms Shape Perfusion Maps.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perfusion stability in acute stroke: An observational study exploiting repeated CTP imaging.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Real-world data on the impact of dose reduction measures on radiation exposure in CT perfusion of the brain.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Without Perfusion Deficit: A Retrospective Analysis.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCT perfusion of the brain is a powerful tool in stroke imaging, though the radiation dose is rather high. Several strategies for dose reduction have been proposed, including increasing the intervals between the dynamic scans. We determined the impact of temporal resolution on perfusion metrics, therapy decision, and radiation dose reduction in brain CT perfusion from a large dataset of patients with suspected stroke.
methodsWe retrospectively included 3555 perfusion scans from our clinical routine dataset. All cases were processed using the perfusion software VEOcore with a standard sampling of 1.5 s, as well as simulated reduced temporal resolution of 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 s by leaving out respective time points. The resulting perfusion maps and calculated volumes of infarct core and mismatch were compared quantitatively. Finally, hypothetical decisions for mechanical thrombectomy following the DEFUSE-3 criteria were compared.
resultsThe agreement between calculated volumes for core (ICC = 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98) and hypoperfusion (ICC = 0.99, 0.99, and 0.97) was excellent for all temporal sampling schemes. Of the 1226 cases with vascular occlusion, 14 (1%) for 3.0 s sampling, 23 (2%) for 4.5 s sampling, and 63 (5%) for 6.0 s sampling would have been treated differently if the DEFUSE-3 criteria had been applied. Reduction of temporal resolution to 3.0 s, 4.5 s, and 6.0 s reduced the radiation dose by a factor of 2, 3, or 4.
conclusionReducing the temporal sampling of brain perfusion CT has only a minor impact on image quality and treatment decision, but significantly reduces the radiation dose to that of standard non-contrast CT.
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.