Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38679541›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2025

Comparison of iterative reconstruction implementations for multislice helical CT.

Zsolt Adam Balogh, Zsofia Barna, Eva Majoros

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zsolt Adam BaloghDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain P.O.Box: 15551, United Arab Emirates. Electronic address: baloghzsa@gmail.com.
Zsofia BarnaMediso Ltd., Budapest H-1037, Hungary. Electronic address: zsofia.barna@mediso.com.
Eva MajorosMarton Varga Technical College, Budapest H-1149, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The most mature image reconstruction algorithms in multislice helical computed tomography are based on analytical and iterative methods. Over the past decades, several methods have been developed for iterative reconstructions that improve image quality by reducing noise and artifacts. In the regularization step of iterative reconstruction, noise can be significantly reduced, thereby making low-dose CT. The quality of the reconstructed image can be further improved by using model-based reconstructions. In these reconstructions, the main focus is on modeling the data acquisition process, including the behavior of the photon beams, the geometry of the system, etc. In this article, we propose two model-based reconstruction algorithms using a virtual detector for multislice helical CT. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of using a virtual detector on image quality for the two proposed algorithms with a model-based iterative reconstruction using the original detector model. Since the algorithms are implemented using multiple GPUs, the merging of separately reconstructed volumes can significantly affect image quality. This issue is often referred to as the "long object" problem, for which we also present a solution that plays an important role in the proposed reconstruction processes. The algorithms were evaluated using mathematical and physical phantoms, as well as patient cases. The SSIM, MS-SSIM and L

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMultidetector Computed TomographyTomography, Spiral ComputedAlgorithmsHumansPhantoms, ImagingComputed tomographyIterative reconstructionPi lines

Identifiers

PMID38679541
PMCPMC12766500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.