ArticleCurrent medical science2025
Image Quality Optimization in 60 kVp Head-Neck CTA: A Comparative Study of FBP, ClearView, and ClearInfinity Reconstruction Algorithms.
Article in Current medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning reconstruction for 40-keV virtual monoenergetic CT of colon cancer: evaluation of image quality and edge sharpness.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of optimal ClearInfinity artificial intelligence deep learning reconstruction algorithm weights with a 70-kVp tube voltage combined with "dual-low" abdominal computed tomography angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo compare the impact of different reconstruction algorithms on the image quality of 60 kVp head and neck CT angiography (CTA) using subjective and objective metrics, with a focus on vessel edge sharpness.
methodsThis prospective study enrolled 45 patients who underwent ultra-low-voltage (60 kVp) head and neck CTA. Image datasets were reconstructed with filtered back-projection (FBP), ClearView (CV) and ClearInfinity (CI) algorithms at low (30%), medium (50%), and high (70%) strengths. Image quality was assessed subjectively and objectively via the Kruskal‒Wallis test for multiple comparisons. Objective parameters, including edge rise slope (ERS) and edge rise distance (ERD), were analyzed via the Friedman test of multiple comparisons statistics.
resultsSubjective assessments favored the CI50 reconstruction algorithm, demonstrating superior or satisfactory results compared to the other algorithms, with significantly better vessel delineation, edge definition and diagnostic confidence (all P < 0.05). Objective analysis revealed that the CV50 and CV70 algorithms significantly reduced ERS and/or elevated ERD (both P < 0.05). However, the CI50 algorithm maintained comparable vessel edge sharpness (P > 0.05) across all evaluated head and neck vascular segments when compared with the FBP algorithm.
conclusionsThe CI50 reconstruction algorithm optimizes image quality in 60 kVp head and neck CTA. It provides vessel edge sharpness comparable to FBP while offering superior vessel delineation, edge definition, and diagnostic confidence compared to FBP and CV algorithm. These findings suggest that CI50 has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy in low-dose vascular imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41144121What 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.