ArticleScientific reports2025
Model based noise correction enhances the accuracy of pancreatic CT perfusion blood flow measurements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A model based noise correction algorithm was developed to improve the accuracy of CT perfusion (CTp) blood flow (BF) measurements affected by image noise. The algorithm used tissue attenuation curves (TACs), generated by convolving an impulse response function (IRF) with an arterial input function (AIF) averaged from 59 patient datasets. Gaussian noise was introduced to simulate noise, and BF was measured using deconvolution. The algorithm iteratively compared BF without added noise against noise-impacted BF to estimate ground-truth BF (GTBF). Performance was evaluated with digital perfusion phantoms (DPPs) for GTBF values of 5-420 ml/100 ml/min and added noise (standard deviation 25 HU), measuring absolute difference from GTBF and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). For clinical evaluation, CTp data from 14 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients was used. For DPPs, noise-impacted and noise-corrected BF were 140 ± 111 ml/100 ml/min and 131 ± 125 ml/100 ml/min, compared to GTBF of 131 ± 127 ml/100 ml/min. Post-correction, the absolute difference reduced from 18.8 to 3.6 ml/100 ml/min, with CNR improving from 2.52 to 2.66. In clinical datasets, BF for parenchyma shifted from 148 ± 50.8 to 84.1 ± 96.9 ml/100 ml/min, and for PDAC, from 45.8 ± 20.3 to 13.3 ± 18.7 ml/100 ml/min. The algorithm reduced noise impact, improving BF accuracy and CNR, with potential for lower-dose CT without compromising diagnostic quality.
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.