ArticleScientific reports2025
Differences in different reconstruction algorithms for coronary CTA demonstrating pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Quantifying the metabolic-inflammatory axis: synergistic value of TyG index and FAI in assessing CAD risk among MAFLD patients.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) surrounding the coronary arteries, a sensitive biomarker for coronary inflammation, can be measured through standard Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA). The aim of this study is to evaluate the differences in FAI as displayed on CCTA using three different reconstruction algorithms: high-level Deep Learning Image Reconstruction (DLIR-H), adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-Veo at a level of 50% (ASiR-V50%), and Filtered Back Projection (FBP). Based on the presence or absence of plaque, the population was divided into the following groups: normal, no plaque, non-calcified plaque, mixed plaque, and calcified plaque. Each group was then further analysed according to the reconstruction algorithm, with three subgroups for each: DLIR-H, ASiR-V50%, and FBP. Attenuation values for pericardial adipose tissue, image noise, and the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) of the three proximal coronary arteries were measured and evaluated for each of the three reconstruction algorithms. The attenuation values of pericardial adipose tissue measured by the three algorithms were not statistically different. However, the FAI measured by DLIR-H was the highest, followed by ASiR-V50%, with FBP yielding the lowest value; all differences were statistically significant. Meanwhile, DLIR-H demonstrated the strongest ability to reduce image noise, whereas FBP showed the weakest ability to do so. FAI varies significantly depending on the algorithm used. Therefore, standardised reconstruction protocols are essential in multicentre and longitudinal studies to ensure accurate, reproducible, and comparable FAI results.
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.