Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39170325›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Optimizing computed tomography image reconstruction for focal hepatic lesions: Deep learning image reconstruction vs iterative reconstruction.

Varin Jaruvongvanich, Kobkun Muangsomboon, Wanwarang Teerasamit, Voraparee Suvannarerg, Chulaluk Komoltri, Sastrawut Thammakittiphan, Wimonrat Lornimitdee, Witchuda Ritsamrej, Parinya Chaisue, Napapong Pongnapang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

11 authors.

Varin JaruvongvanichDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kobkun MuangsomboonDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wanwarang TeerasamitDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Voraparee SuvannarergDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chulaluk KomoltriDivision of Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sastrawut ThammakittiphanDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wimonrat LornimitdeeDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Witchuda RitsamrejDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Parinya ChaisueDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Napapong PongnapangDepartment of Radiological Technology, Faculty of Medical Technology, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Piyaporn ApisarnthanarakDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) is a novel computed tomography (CT) reconstruction technique that minimizes image noise, enhances image quality, and enables radiation dose reduction. This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of DLIR and iterative reconstruction (IR) in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 216 focal hepatic lesions in 109 adult participants who underwent abdominal CT scanning at our institution. We used DLIR (low, medium, and high strength) and IR (0 %, 10 %, 20 %, and 30 %) techniques for image reconstruction. Four experienced abdominal radiologists independently evaluated focal hepatic lesions based on five qualitative aspects (lesion detectability, lesion border, diagnostic confidence level, image artifact, and overall image quality). Quantitatively, we measured and compared the level of image noise for each technique at the liver and aorta. Results: There were significant differences ( Conclusions: The optimal-strength DLIR significantly improved overall image quality for evaluating focal hepatic lesions compared to the IR technique. DLIR-L achieved the best overall image quality while maintaining acceptable levels of image noise and quality of lesion borders.

Indexed as

Adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-VComputed tomographyDeep learning image reconstructionIterative reconstructionTrueFidelity

Identifiers

PMID39170325
PMCPMC11336302

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.