ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Comparison of deep learning reconstruction and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for head CT in acute stroke.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
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
purposeTo compare deep learning reconstruction (DLR) at three denoising strengths (Low, Medium, High) with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR-V) for non-contrast head CT (NCCT) in adult patients presenting with acute stroke symptoms.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 102 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.65 years) underwent NCCT within 24 h of stroke symptom onset between December 2024 and April 2025. Raw data were reconstructed using ASIR-V and DLR-L, DLR-M, and DLR-H. Two blinded radiologists assessed perceived noise, gray–white matter differentiation (supratentorial, deep, infratentorial), image texture, diagnostic confidence, and beam-hardening artifacts on 5-point Likert scales. Quantitative metrics included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), posterior fossa artifact index (PFAI), and subcalvarial artifact index (SAI). Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (ASPECTS) were recorded. Qualitative data was analysed using Friedman test with post hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests (Bonferroni corrected) and quantitative data was analyzed using paired t-tests (Benjamini–Hochberg corrected).
resultsDLR-L and DLR-M achieved significantly higher gray–white matter differentiation scores than ASIR-V on pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05). DLR-H demonstrated the lowest perceived noise and lower texture ratings than ASIR-V (p < 0.05). DLR-H had the highest SNR and CNR in most regions, with large effect sizes in the deep nuclei (d = 0.934) and cerebellum (d = 0.917). All DLR strengths significantly reduced PFAI; SAI was significantly lower with DLR-M and DLR-H. Diagnostic confidence, and ASPECTS did not differ significantly between these techniques.
conclusionDLR improves image quality and decreases artifacts compared with ASIR-V. Medium denoising strength (DLR-M) provides an optimal balance of artifact reduction and texture preference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41549105What 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.