ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparison of chest computed tomography in Turbo FLASH mode with conventional mode for coronary artery disease screening: radiation dose, image quality, and calcium scoring performance.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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
Background: Currently, the traditional chest computed tomography (CT) scan mode presents certain limitations in evaluating the coronary artery calcification score (CACS). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the impact of using the Turbo FLASH mode to optimize chest CT on radiation dose, image quality, and CACS. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 968 patients who simultaneously underwent routine chest CT (using the Turbo FLASH mode or the conventional mode) and cardiac CT [coronary calcium scan (CCS) and coronary CT angiography] were retrospectively collected. A comparative analysis was performed between the FLASH mode (n=493) and the conventional mode (n=475) in terms of radiation dose and image quality. CACS analysis was carried out using a semi-automatic software based on CCS, chest CT (FLASH), and chest CT (conventional). Using the CCS-CACS as a reference, the correlation, consistency, and concordance rate of risk categories based on CACS from the two chest CT modes were independently calculated. Results: Chest CT (FLASH) reduced the mean radiation dose by 36.47 mGy·cm (11.1%) and exhibited fewer motion artifacts, albeit with a worse signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (all P<0.05). For CACS quantification, chest CT (FLASH) showed a stronger linear correlation (r, 0.998 Conclusions: The Turbo FLASH mode of chest CT excels in detecting microcalcifications, reducing false negatives, and improving the accuracy of risk categories. It also lowers radiation exposure, but it may compromise the SNR of images.
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.