ArticleEuropean radiology2025
High-resolution deep learning reconstruction for coronary CTA: compared efficacy of stenosis evaluation with other methods at in vitro and in vivo studies.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo directly compare coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type iterative reconstruction (IR), model-based IR (MBIR), deep learning reconstruction (DLR), and high-resolution deep learning reconstruction (HR-DLR) on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in both in vitro and in vivo studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor the in vitro study, a total of three-vessel tube phantoms with diameters of 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm and with simulated non-calcified stepped stenosis plaques with degrees of 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% stenosis were scanned with area-detector CT (ADCT) and ultra-high-resolution CT (UHR-CT). Then, ADCT data were reconstructed using all methods, although UHR-CT data were reconstructed with hybrid-type IR, MBIR, and DLR. For the in vivo study, patients who had undergone CCTA at ADCT were retrospectively selected, and each CCTA data set was reconstructed with all methods. To compare the image noise and measurement accuracy at each of the stenosis levels, image noise, and inner diameter were evaluated and statistically compared. To determine the effect of HR-DLR on CAD-RADS evaluation accuracy, the accuracy of CAD-RADS categorization of all CCTAs was compared by using McNemar's test.
resultsThe image noise of HR-DLR was significantly lower than that of others on ADCT and UHR-CT (p < 0.0001). At a 50% and 75% stenosis level for each phantom, hybrid-type IR showed a significantly larger mean difference on ADCT than did others (p < 0.05). At in vivo study, 31 patients were included. Accuracy on HR-DLR was significantly higher than that on hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR (p < 0.0001).
conclusionHR-DLR is potentially superior for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations to hybrid-type IR, MBIR, or DLR shown on CCTA. KEY POINTS: Question How do coronary arterial stenosis evaluations by hybrid-type IR, MBIR, DLR, and HR-DLR compare to coronary CT angiography? Findings HR-DLR showed significantly lower image noise and more accurate coronary artery disease reporting and data system (CAD-RADS) evaluation than others. Clinical relevance HR-DLR is potentially superior to other reconstruction methods for coronary arterial stenosis evaluations, as demonstrated by coronary CT angiography results on ADCT and as shown in both in vitro and in vivo studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39903239What 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.