ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024
Deep learning reconstruction for coronary CT angiography in patients with origin anomaly, stent or bypass graft.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac CT: From Coronary CT Angiography to CT-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve and Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Review
- What you don't see matters: dual-energy CT in emergency radiology.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Themes.Clinical cardiology · 2026Review
- Human-AI Interaction in Interventional Radiology: A Narrative Review of Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Spectral Computed Tomography Angiography in Visceral Artery Aneurysms: Technical Principles and Clinical Applications.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Review
- Article
- Deciphering age- and sex-specific patterns of coronary artery atherosclerosis from a large Chinese cohort.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Comprehensive review of pulmonary embolism imaging: past, present and future innovations in computed tomography (CT) and other diagnostic techniques.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in coronary CT angiography: transforming the diagnosis and risk stratification of atherosclerosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a deep learning (DL)-model for automatic reconstruction for coronary CT angiography (CCTA) in patients with origin anomaly, stent or bypass graft. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, a DL model for automatic CCTA reconstruction was developed with training and validation sets from 6063 and 1962 patients. The algorithm was evaluated on an independent external test set of 812 patients (357 with origin anomaly or revascularization, 455 without). The image quality of DL reconstruction and manual reconstruction (using dedicated cardiac reconstruction software provided by CT vendors) was compared using a 5-point scale. The successful reconstruction rates and post-processing time for two methods were recorded.
resultsIn the external test set, 812 patients (mean age, 64.0 ± 11.6, 100 with origin anomalies, 152 with stents, 105 with bypass grafts) were evaluated. The successful rates for automatic reconstruction were 100% (455/455), 97% (97/100), 100% (152/152), and 76.2% (80/105) in patients with native vessel, origin anomaly, stent, and bypass graft, respectively. The image quality scores were significantly higher for DL reconstruction than those for manual approach in all subgroups (4 vs. 3 for native vessel, 4 vs. 4 for origin anomaly, 4 vs. 3 for stent and 4 vs. 3 for bypass graft, all p < 0.001). The overall post-processing time was remarkably reduced for DL reconstruction compared to manual method (11 s vs. 465 s, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe developed DL model enabled accurate automatic CCTA reconstruction of bypass graft, stent and origin anomaly. It significantly reduced post-processing time and improved clinical workflow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39023665What 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.