ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Application of deep learning reconstruction at prone position chest scanning of early interstitial lung disease.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTimely intervention of interstitial lung disease (ILD) was promising for attenuating the lung function decline and improving clinical outcomes. The prone position HRCT is essential for early diagnosis of ILD, but limited by its high radiation exposure. This study was aimed to explore whether deep learning reconstruction (DLR) could keep the image quality and reduce the radiation dose compared with hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) in prone position scanning for patients of early-stage ILD.
methodsThis study prospectively enrolled 21 patients with early-stage ILD. All patients underwent high-resolution CT (HRCT) and low-dose CT (LDCT) scans. HRCT images were reconstructed with HIR using standard settings, and LDCT images were reconstructed with DLR (lung/bone kernel) in a mild, standard, or strong setting. Overall image quality, image noise, streak artifacts, and visualization of normal and abnormal ILD features were analysed.
resultsThe effective dose of LDCT was 1.22 ± 0.09 mSv, 63.7% less than the HRCT dose. The objective noise of the LDCT DLR images was 35.9-112.6% that of the HRCT HIR images. The LDCT DLR was comparable to the HRCT HIR in terms of overall image quality. LDCT DLR (bone, strong) visualization of bronchiectasis and/or bronchiolectasis was significantly weaker than that of HRCT HIR (p = 0.046). The LDCT DLR (all settings) did not significantly differ from the HRCT HIR in the evaluation of other abnormal features, including ground glass opacities (GGOs), architectural distortion, reticulation and honeycombing.
conclusionWith 63.7% reduction of radiation dose, the overall image quality of LDCT DLR was comparable to HRCT HIR in prone scanning for early ILD patients. This study supported that DLR was promising for maintaining image quality under a lower radiation dose in prone scanning, and it offered valuable insights for the selection of images reconstruction algorithms for the diagnosis and follow-up of early ILD.
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.