ArticleJournal of computer assisted tomography
Ability of Deep Learning Image Reconstruction to Preserve Detail and Remove Noise in Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: A Clinical Analysis.
Article in Journal of computer assisted tomography. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze image quality over 3 levels (low, medium, and high) of deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR), evaluate whether edge detail is lost with higher denoising levels. MATERIALS AND
methodsNineteen subjects scanned with the institute's clinical coronary CT angiography (CCTA) protocols were retrospectively reconstructed with low, medium, and high levels of DLIR. Two readers assessed image quality on a 5-point Likert scale for structural confidence in relevant structures, low contrast detectability, noise, spatial resolution, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality. The noise texture of images was also assessed using a non-Likert 5-point scale of "plastic" to "sandy." Reader agreement was assessed with pairwise linearly weighted Cohen Kappa. Objective analysis was performed with contrast-to-noise (CNR) measurements of the aorta, left main artery, and right coronary artery. Friedman and Dunnett tests were used to assess statistical differences in image quality and CNR. To assess detail loss, edge detail preservation was assessed with different images between DLIR levels.
resultsObservations of the difference images between DLIR images and the histograms of edge and nonedge pixels demonstrated that negligible edge detail was lost between the DLIR reconstructions. High DLIR CNR was significantly ( P ≤0.006) higher than low and medium DLIR CNR. Medium DLIR CNR was significantly ( P ≤0.02) higher than low DLIR CNR. Reader agreement was moderate ( κ =0.42). High DLIR scores were significantly superior ( P ≤0.002) to low DLIR scores for most structural confidence structures, low contrast detectability, noise, spatial resolution, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality, and significantly superior ( P ≤0.03) to medium DLIR scores for all categories except spatial resolution ( P =0.66).
conclusionBy both objective and subjective measures, the higher levels of DLIR resulted in improved image quality without loss of edge details.
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.