ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Detection of intracranial hemorrhage using ultralow-dose brain computed tomography with deep learning reconstruction versus conventional-dose computed tomography.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- From fragmented neurotechnologies to closed-loop brain health systems: integrating artificial intelligence, digital health, digital twins, and advanced materials for brain disorders.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance, image quality, and radiation dose among ultralow-dose protocol with deep learning reconstruction (DLR), ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) with iterative reconstruction (IR), and conventional-dose protocols for detecting intracranial hemorrhage.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 93 patients (median age: 67 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 59-76 years; 61 males). A conventional-dose CT was obtained using 120 kVp, 123-188 mA and IR. Follow-up ultralow-dose CT was obtained using 120 kVp, 50 mA with IR and DLR. Qualitative assessments and quantitative assessments were conducted. The diagnostic performance for detecting intracranial hemorrhage was assessed.
resultsAn approximately 84.0% reduction in median volume CT dose index was found in the ultralow-dose CT protocol (5.6 mGy) compared with conventional-dose CT (35.02 mGy). Ultralow-dose CT with DLR significantly (p < 0.001) reduced image noise, improved signal-to-nosie ratio, and contrast-to-tnoise ratio compared with ultralow-dose CT with IR and conventional-dose CT. Ultralow-dose CT with DLR resulted in higher sensitivity (99.3% vs. 98.6%) and specificity (97.5% vs. 97.5%) for detecting intracranial hemorrhage than ultralow-dose CT with IR.
conclusionUltralow-dose CT with DLR is not inferior to conventional-dose CT in terms of image quality and diagnostic performance for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage, while achieving an approximate 87.7% reduction in radiation dose.
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.