ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024
Noise Reduction in Brain CT: A Comparative Study of Deep Learning and Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction Using Multiple Parameters.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 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
objectivesWe evaluated the noise reduction effects of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) and hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) in brain computed tomography (CT).
methodsCT images of a 16 cm dosimetry phantom, a head phantom, and the brains of 11 patients were reconstructed using filtered backprojection (FBP) and various levels of DLR and HIR. The slice thickness was 5, 2.5, 1.25, and 0.625 mm. Phantom imaging was also conducted at various tube currents. The noise reduction ratio was calculated using FBP as the reference. For patient imaging, overall image quality was visually compared between DLR and HIR images that exhibited similar noise reduction ratios.
resultsThe noise reduction ratio increased with increasing levels of DLR and HIR in phantom and patient imaging. For DLR, noise reduction was more pronounced with decreasing slice thickness, while such thickness dependence was less evident for HIR. Although the noise reduction effects of DLR were similar between the head phantom and patients, they differed for the dosimetry phantom. Variations between imaging objects were small for HIR. The noise reduction ratio was low at low tube currents for the dosimetry phantom using DLR; otherwise, the influence of the tube current was small. In terms of visual image quality, DLR outperformed HIR in 1.25 mm thick images but not in thicker images.
conclusionsThe degree of noise reduction using DLR depends on the slice thickness, tube current, and imaging object in addition to the level of DLR, which should be considered in the clinical use of DLR. DLR may be particularly beneficial for thin-slice imaging.
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.