ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessment of image quality and impact of deep learning-based software in non-contrast head CT scans.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Deep-learning reconstruction for noncontrast head computed tomography: Improved image quality and potential diagnostic impact in acute ischemic stroke.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Application of Deep Learning Algorithm-Based Image Reconstruction in Improving Abdominal CT Image Quality in Adrenal and Renal Lesions Detection.Radiology research and practice · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Medical Image Quality Assessment.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess the objective and subjective image quality of different reconstruction techniques and a deep learning-based software on non-contrast head computed tomography (CT) images. In total, 152 adult head CT scans (77 female, 75 male; mean age 69.4 ± 18.3 years) obtained from three different CT scanners using different protocols between March and April 2021 were included. CT images were reconstructed using filtered-back projection (FBP), iterative reconstruction (IR), and post-processed using a deep learning-based algorithm (PS). Post-processing significantly reduced noise in FBP-reconstructed images (up to 15.4% reduction) depending on the protocol, leading to improvements in signal-to-noise ratio of up to 19.7%. However, when deep learning-based post-processing was applied to FBP images compared to IR alone, the differences were inconsistent and partly non-significant, which appeared to be protocol or site specific. Subjective assessments showed no significant overall improvement in image quality for all reconstructions and post-processing. Inter-rater reliability was low and preferences varied. Deep learning-based denoising software improved objective image quality compared to FBP in routine head CT. A significant difference compared to IR was observed for only one protocol. Subjective assessments did not indicate a significant clinical impact in terms of improved subjective image quality, likely due to the low noise levels in full-dose images.
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.