ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Effect of quantum iterative reconstruction on coronary stent assessment in ultra-high resolution photon-counting detector CT: a phantom study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study seeks to assess the impact of quantum iterative reconstruction (QIR) on objective measures of contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), lumen diameter, and stent strut thickness using photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) in ultra-high resolution mode (UHR) in a coronary phantom. MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-dimensional printed phantom (four parallel vessels; 3 vessels with varying 3.5-mm stent types) was applied. Demineralized water, mixed with iodinated contrast, was circulated through the phantom by a dynamic pump. Images were acquired on a commercially available PCD-CT system using retrospective helical acquisition in UHR mode at both 120 and 140 kVp. Images were reconstructed at four QIR-levels (1‒4) using three sharp vascular kernels (Bv56u, Bv68u, and Bv76u). Quantitative evaluations of lumen diameter (mm) and stent strut thickness (mm) were assessed by attenuation profiles using an in-house MATLAB script.
resultsIncreasing QIR level from 1 to 4 improved CNR from 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31‒1.70) (QIR-level 1) to 3.33 (95% CI: 2.89‒3.77) (QIR-level 4), p < 0.001. There was no change (QIR-level 1 to 4) in lumen diameter, range 2.95 mm (95% CI: 2.89‒3.02) to 2.97 mm (95% CI: 2.91‒3.03) (p = 0.890) or strut thickness, range 0.62 mm (95% CI: 0.59‒0.65) to 0.61 mm (95% CI: 0.58‒0.65 ((p = 0.870), regardless of contrast concentration or reconstruction kernel.
conclusionIncreasing QIR-level in UHR mode PCD-CT in a stented coronary phantom improved CNR without affecting objective measures of lumen diameter or stent strut thickness under controlled phantom conditions. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: There has been debate regarding the negative impact of iterative reconstruction on spatial resolution, potentially increasing blooming artifacts caused by coronary stents, which is of special concern when imaging small stent lumens. Currently, no studies have assessed the effect of QIR on the objective assessment of coronary stents. KEY POINTS: Some earlier implementations of iterative reconstruction negatively impacted spatial resolution, raising concerns for small-vessel and stent imaging. No prior studies examined the effect of QIR on coronary stent assessment. The effect of QIR was evaluated at four levels (1‒4) in a stented coronary phantom. Increasing QIR to the highest level significantly improved luminal CNR. Objective measures of stent dimensions remained unchanged across all QIR levels.
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.