ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Deep learning-based computed tomography reconstruction improves image quality but does not significantly affect Alberta stroke program early CT score evaluation in acute middle cerebral artery territory infarction.
Article in Neuroradiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR), a deep learning-based computed tomography (CT) reconstruction method, improves image quality, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), and the detectability of early ischemic changes (EIC) in acute middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarction compared to filtered back projection (FBP) and Iterative Reconstruction (IR).
methodsThis retrospective study included 30 patients with confirmed acute MCA infarction who underwent non-contrast brain CT and follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). CT images reconstructed with FBP, IR, and DLIR were assessed for image quality using quantitative metrics (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) and qualitative evaluations of visibility and noise. ASPECTS was calculated for each reconstruction method, and diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were analyzed using DWI ASPECTS as the reference.
resultsDLIR demonstrated significantly reduced image noise and superior SNR compared to FBP and IR (p < 0.0001). The CNR of DLIR was significantly higher than that of FBP (p = 0.0036), but no significant difference was observed compared to IR (p = 0.4238). Qualitative assessments indicated improved visibility and noise with DLIR. However, there were no significant differences in ASPECTS scores or the supplementary diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) in predicting acute MCA territory infarction between DLIR and FBP, and between DLIR and IR.
conclusionDLIR improved image quality in thin-slice CT for acute MCA territory infarction but did not lead to significant differences in ASPECTS evaluation or the detection of EIC compared to FBP and IR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41091157What 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.