Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39929540›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025

Optimization of Photon-Counting CT Myelography for the Detection of CSF-Venous Fistulas Using Convolutional Neural Network Denoising: A Comparative Analysis of Reconstruction Techniques.

Ajay A Madhavan, Zhongxing Zhou, Paul J Farnsworth, Jamison Thorne, Timothy J Amrhein, Peter G Kranz, Waleed Brinjikji, Jeremy K Cutsforth-Gregory, Michelle L Kodet, Nikkole M Weber and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

13 authors.

Ajay A MadhavanFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota madhavan.ajay@mayo.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1794-4502
Zhongxing ZhouFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Paul J FarnsworthFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3955-6722
Jamison ThorneFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3993-6423
Timothy J AmrheinDepartment of Radiology (T.J.A., P.G.K.), Duke Health, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-9486
Peter G KranzDepartment of Radiology (T.J.A., P.G.K.), Duke Health, Durham, North Carolina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5410-7135
Waleed BrinjikjiFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5271-5524
Jeremy K Cutsforth-GregoryDepartment of Neurology (J.K.C.-G.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5689-4424
Michelle L KodetFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4317-1697
Nikkole M WeberFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6198-2958
Grace ThompsonFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Felix E DiehnFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9458-8017
Lifeng YuFrom the Department of Radiology (A.A.M., ZZ., P.J.F., J.T., W.B., M.L.K., N.M.W., G.T., F.E.D., L.Y.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposePhoton-counting detector CT myelography (PCD-CTM) is a recently described technique used for detecting spinal CSF leaks, including CSF-venous fistulas. Various image reconstruction techniques, including smoother-versus-sharper kernels and virtual monoenergetic images, are available with photon-counting CT. Moreover, denoising algorithms have shown promise in improving sharp kernel images. No prior studies have compared image quality of these different reconstructions on photon-counting CT myelography. Here, we sought to compare several image reconstructions using various parameters important for the detection of CSF-venous fistulas. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a retrospective review of all consecutive decubitus PCD-CTM between February 1, 2022, and August 1, 2024, at 1 institution. We included patients whose studies had the following reconstructions: Br48-40 keV virtual monoenergetic reconstruction, Br56 low-energy threshold (T3D), Qr89-T3D denoised with quantum iterative reconstruction, and Qr89-T3D denoised with a convolutional neural network algorithm. We excluded patients who had extradural CSF on preprocedural imaging or a technically unsatisfactory myelogram-. All 4 reconstructions were independently reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists. Each reviewer rated spatial resolution, noise, the presence of artifacts, image quality, and diagnostic confidence (whether positive or negative) on a 1-5 scale. These metrics were compared using the Friedman test. Additionally, noise and contrast were quantitatively assessed by a third reviewer and compared.

resultsThe Qr89 reconstructions demonstrated higher spatial resolution than their Br56 or Br48-40keV counterparts. Qr89 with convolutional neural network denoising had less noise, better image quality, and improved diagnostic confidence compared with Qr89 with quantum iterative reconstruction denoising. The Br48-40keV reconstruction had the highest contrast-to-noise ratio quantitatively.

conclusionsIn our study, the sharpest quantitative kernel (Qr89-T3D) with convolutional neural network denoising demonstrated the best performance regarding spatial resolution, noise level, image quality, and diagnostic confidence for detecting or excluding the presence of a CSF-venous fistula.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal Fluid LeakMyelographyNeural Networks, ComputerRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAlgorithmsConvolutional Neural NetworksFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotonsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID39929540
PMCPMC12453494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.