ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Evaluation of four computed tomography reconstruction algorithms using a coronary artery phantom.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Super-resolution deep learning reconstruction achieves low-dose high-resolution imaging in pediatric cardiac computed tomography.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Myocardial extracellular volume fraction in cardiac CT: comparison of deep learning reconstruction and iterative reconstruction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Improvement of Quantification of Myocardial Synthetic ECV with Second-Generation Deep Learning Reconstruction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite advancements in coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA), challenges in positive predictive value and specificity remain due to limited spatial resolution. The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the effect of 2nd generation deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) on the quantitative and qualitative image quality in coronary CTA. Methods: A vessel model with stepwise non-calcified plaque was scanned using 320-detector CT. Image reconstruction was performed using four techniques: hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR), model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR), DLR, and 2nd generation DLR. The luminal peak CT number, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and edge rise slope (ERS) were quantitatively evaluated via profile curve analysis. Two observers qualitatively graded the graininess, lumen sharpness, and overall lumen visibility on the basis of the degree of confidence for the stenosis severity using a five-point scale. Results: The image noise with HIR, MBIR, DLR, and 2nd generation DLR was 23.0, 21.0, 16.9, and 9.5 HU, respectively. The corresponding CNR (25% stenosis) was 15.5, 15.9, 22.1, and 38.3, respectively. The corresponding ERS (25% stenosis) was 203.2, 198.6, 228.9, and 262.4 HU/mm, respectively. Among the four reconstruction methods, the 2nd generation DLR achieved the significantly highest CNR and ERS values. The score of 2nd generation DLR in all evaluation points (graininess, sharpness, and overall lumen visibility) was higher than those of the other methods (overall vessel visibility score, 2.6±0.5, 3.8±0.6, 3.7±0.5, and 4.6±0.5 with HIR, MBIR, DLR, and 2nd generation DLR, respectively). Conclusions: 2nd generation DLR provided better CNR and ERS in coronary CTA than HIR, MBIR, and previous-generation DLR, leading to the highest subjective image quality in the assessment of vessel stenosis.
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.