ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024
NoiseNet, a fully automatic noise assessment tool that can identify non-diagnostic CCTA examinations.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Image noise and vascular attenuation are important factors affecting image quality and diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). The aim of this study was to develop an algorithm that automatically performs noise and attenuation measurements in CCTA and to evaluate the ability of the algorithm to identify non-diagnostic examinations. The algorithm, "NoiseNet", was trained and tested on 244 CCTA studies from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary BioImage Study. The model is a 3D U-Net that automatically segments the aortic root and measures attenuation (Hounsfield Units, HU), noise (standard deviation of HU, HUsd) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, HU/HUsd) in the aortic lumen, close to the left coronary ostium. NoiseNet was then applied to 529 CCTA studies previously categorized into three subgroups: fully diagnostic, diagnostic with excluded parts and non-diagnostic. There was excellent correlation between NoiseNet and manual measurements of noise (r = 0.948; p < 0.001) and SNR (r = 0.948; <0.001). There was a significant difference in noise levels between the image quality subgroups: fully diagnostic 33.1 (29.8-37.9); diagnostic with excluded parts 36.1 (31.5-40.3) and non-diagnostic 42.1 (35.2-47.7; p < 0.001). Corresponding values for SNR were 16.1 (14.0-18.0); 14.0 (12.4-16.2) and 11.1 (9.6-14.0; p < 0.001). ROC analysis for prediction of a non-diagnostic study showed an AUC for noise of 0.73 (CI 0.64-0.83) and for SNR of 0.80 (CI 0.71-0.89). In conclusion, NoiseNet can perform noise and SNR measurements with high accuracy. Noise and SNR impact image quality and automatic measurements may be used to identify CCTA studies with low image quality.
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.