ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Accuracy of ultra-high resolution and virtual non-calcium reconstruction algorithm for stenosis evaluation with photon-counting CT: results from a dynamic phantom study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vivo coronary stent evaluation using photon-counting computed tomography: diagnostic performance.European radiology · 2026Article
- Photon-counting CT in neuroradiology: a comprehensive SWOT analysis.European radiology · 2026Review
- Ultra-high spatial resolution at photon-counting computed tomography: technical insights and sustainable applications in cardiothoracic imaging.European radiology experimental · 2026Review
- Reduction of radiation exposure and preserved image quality using photon-counting detector cardiac computed tomography without electrocardiographic gating in children with congenital heart disease.European radiology · 2026Article
- Spectral ultrahigh-resolution photon-counting CT for coronary stent imaging: evaluation in a dynamic phantom.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Stenosis quantification in high-pitch photon-counting coronary CT angiography: in vitro and in vivo impact of reconstruction kernel types and sharpness levels.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Spectral Imaging Techniques in Heart Disease Assessment Using Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Low-keV Virtual Monoenergetic Imaging for Bronchial Artery Visualization on Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Photon-counting detector CT: a disrupting innovation in medical imaging.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Value of Ultrahigh-Resolution Photon-Counting Detector Computed Tomography in Cardiac Imaging.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Creating a Foundation for the Visualization of Intracranial Cerebrospinal Fluid Using Photon-Counting Technology in Spectral Imaging for Cranial CT.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared ultra-high resolution (UHR), standard resolution (SR), and virtual non-calcium (VNCa) reconstruction for coronary artery stenosis evaluation using photon-counting computed tomography (PC-CT).
methodsOne vessel phantom (4-mm diameter) containing solid calcified lesions with 25% and 50% stenoses inside a thorax phantom with motion simulation underwent PC-CT using UHR (0.2-mm slice thickness) and SR (0.6-mm slice thickness) at heart rates of 60 beats per minute (bpm), 80 bpm, and 100 bpm. A paired t-test or Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction was used.
resultsFor 50% stenosis, differences in percent mean diameter stenosis between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (51.0 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.7 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) (p ≤ 0.011), as well as between VNCa and SR at 60 bpm (50.6 vs 60.3), 80 bpm (51.5 vs 59.6), and 100 bpm (53.7 vs 59.0) were significant (p ≤ 0.011), while differences between UHR and VNCa at all heart rates (p ≥ 0.327) were not significant. For 25% stenosis, differences between UHR and SR at 60 bpm (28.0 vs 33.7), 80 bpm (28.4 vs 34.3), and VNCa vs SR at 60 bpm (29.1 vs 33.7) were significant (p ≤ 0.015), while differences for UHR vs SR at 100 bpm (29.9 vs 34.0), as well as for VNCa vs SR at 80 bpm (30.7 vs 34.3) and 100 bpm (33.1 vs 34.0) were not significant (p ≥ 0.028).
conclusionStenosis quantification accuracy with PC-CT improved using either UHR acquisition or VNCa reconstruction. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: PC-CT offers to scan with UHR mode and the reconstruction of VNCa images both of them could provide improved coronary stenosis quantification at increased heart rates, allowing a more accurate stenosis grading at low and high heart rates compared to SR. KEY POINTS: Evaluation of coronary stenosis with conventional CT is challenging at high heart rates. PC-CT allows for scanning with ECG-gated UHR and SR modes. UHR and VNCa images were compared in a dynamic phantom. UHR improves stenosis quantification up to 100 bpm. VNCa reconstruction improves stenosis evaluation up to 80 bpm.
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.