ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Optimizing virtual monoenergetic imaging for dual‑energy CT venography assessment of intracranial venous sinus stents.
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 determine a practical virtual monoenergetic imaging (VMI) energy range that improves in‑stent lumen assessment and reduces metal‑related artifacts on dual‑energy CT venography (DECT‑CTV) after intracranial venous sinus stenting.
methodsRetrospective single‑center study including 10 patients (13 stents) who underwent DECT‑CTV after venous sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension or pulsatile tinnitus. VMI series were reconstructed from 40 to 140 keV in 10‑keV increments. Two neuroradiologists independently scored in‑stent lumen visibility and beam‑hardening/streak artifacts (5‑point Likert). Quantitative analysis used standardized ROI measurements (3 in‑stent and 2 adjacent out‑of‑stent ROIs per stent per keV) and derived metrics including in‑stent attenuation, background noise, CNR, SNR, and dCT_in-out (in‑stent minus out‑of‑stent attenuation).
resultsQualitatively, both readers preferred intermediate‑high energies (90-100 keV) for overall interpretability. Quantitatively, in‑stent attenuation decreased from 1180.7 ± 245.5 HU (40 keV) to 112.5 ± 15.7 HU (140 keV). Noise and dCT_in-out decreased with increasing energy, whereas CNR decreased with increasing energy. SNR showed no statistically significant differences across energies.
conclusionFor intracranial venous sinus stents on DECT‑CTV, VMI around 90-100 keV provided the best perceived balance between lumen accessibility and artifact suppression. Findings require validation in larger cohorts with device‑specific subgroup analyses and complementary artifact indices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41711871What 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.