ArticleMalawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi2025
Deep learning-based reconstruction improves image quality in low-dose head CT angiography.
Article in Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on radiation dose reduction in urological imaging: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Reduced environmental impact in body CT imaging with deep learning reconstruction: experience of a high-volume tertiary referral center.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Convolutional neural network analysis of cervical CT images: classification of Kikuchi disease, lymphoma, lymphadenitis, and tuberculosis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Article
- Comparison of deep learning reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for head CT in acute stroke.Neuroradiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the image quality of filtered back projection (FBP), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-Veo (ASIR-V) and the deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) algorithms in low-dose head CT angiography (CTA). Methods: This prospective study was conducted on 25 patients undergoing head CTA using a 256-slice CT scanner. Patients received 25 mL of iodine contrast (Iopromide, 370 mg I/mL, 3.0 mL/s). Images were reconstructed using DLIR with high settings (DLIR-H) and medium settings (DLIR-M), FBP, and ASIR-V with a blending factor of 50% (ASIR-V 50%). CT values, standard deviations, signal-to-noise ratios (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were measured at the basal ganglia, posterior cranial fossa, center of semiovale, and middle cerebral artery. The edge rise slope (ERS) of the middle cerebral artery rim was measured to assess vessel clarity. Image noise, vessel edge definition, and overall quality were scored on a 5-point scale, while sharpness and clarity were rated on a 4-point scale. Results: FBP images exhibited the highest image noise, as reflected by SD values. DLIR, especially DLIR-H, showed superior noise reduction compared to ASIR-V 50%. SNR followed this trend: FBP < ASIR-V 50% < DLIR-M < DLIR-H. Spatial resolution, measured by ERS for vessel wall clarity, was higher in DLIR images compared to in ASIR-V 50%. DLIR outperformed conventional iterative algorithms in balancing noise reduction and edge clarity, with both DLIR-M and DLIR-H achieving better subjective scores for noise, edge definition, and sharpness than ASIR-V 50% and FBP. Conclusion: DLIR in low-dose head CTA could reduces image noise, preserve natural texture, and enhance image clarity compared with ASIR-V and FBP methods.
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.