ArticlePloS one2026
Feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction using TrueFidelity for coronary calcium scoring.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the feasibility of deep learning-based image reconstruction (DLIR) using GE TrueFidelity at high strength for coronary calcium scoring, compared with filtered back projection (FBP) and iterative reconstruction (IR; adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction-V with 80% blending), using a cardiac phantom and clinical data. Calcium scores for FBP, IR, and DLIR were obtained with a cardiac phantom. Subsequently, 113 patients who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography were retrospectively evaluated. The Agatston method was applied to all three techniques to obtain the coronary artery calcium score (CACS). Differences, correlations, and concordance in sectional classification of calcium scores were evaluated across reconstruction methods. In the phantom study, calcium scores were comparable across reconstruction methods. In the clinical study, DLIR had significantly lower scores than FBP (p < 0.001), whereas the comparison between IR and DLIR was statistically non-significant (p = 0.064). Weighted kappa coefficients indicated high agreement in total CACS classification across the reconstruction methods. However, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated non-negligible individual-level disagreement between FBP and DLIR, with a mean difference of 14.5 and 95% limits of agreement from -52.1 to 81.1. This disagreement may be clinically relevant near established CAC risk-category thresholds, particularly 0, 100, and 300. Among 113 patients, 109 were classified into the same CAC-DRS category by both FBP and DLIR. DLIR underclassified four patients, yielding a false-negative rate of 4.65%. In conclusion, DLIR was feasible for CACS measurement and showed high overall concordance with FBP and IR. However, near-perfect correlation should not be interpreted as interchangeability, because DLIR showed systematic underestimation and non-negligible individual-level disagreement from FBP, particularly in patients with low calcium burden or scores near CAC risk-category thresholds.
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.