ArticleSAGE open medicine2025
A comparison of the image quality between deep learning reconstruction algorithm and iDose4 using low dose abdominopelvic computed tomography for individuals with normal BMI.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Radiation exposure has been a cause of concern in computed tomography imaging. Reducing radiation dose increases the image noise which can be compensated by using reconstruction techniques. Recently artificial intelligence-based reconstruction technique has been introduced. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to prospectively compare the image quality between Idose4 and Precise Image in normal BMI individuals. Methods: Sixty-six consecutive patients with a normal body habitus undergoing contrast-enhanced abdomen and pelvis scan were included in the study. All scans were performed using 100 kVp and tube current modulation. The acquired images were reconstructed to iDose4 and precise imaging. Quantitatively images were analyzed by placing regions of interest in different organs to estimate the image noise, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio. Qualitative analysis was done by two radiologists on a five-point Likert scale. Results: Image noise was significantly reduced using Precise Image across the plain (9.11 ± 1.43 vs 8.18 ± 1.2), arterial (14.34 ± 2.1 vs 10.21 ± 1.5), and portovenous phase (14.78 ± 2.30 vs 11.97 ± 2.07) with maximum noise reduction in the arterial and portovenous phases. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly improved in all the organs across the plain, arterial, and portovenous phases. Qualitative analysis showed no significant difference between Idose4 and Precise Image with regards to visualization of large vessels in the arterial and portovenous phases. However, precise image was graded better than Idose4 with respect to visualization/conspicuity, image noise, and artifacts. Conclusion: Precise Image can be useful in reducing the image noise and improving the signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio in low-dose computed tomography protocol among normal BMI individuals.
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.