ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Comparison of deep learning reconstruction algorithms to improve image quality of dual-energy carotid CT angiography under dual-low scan.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning for MRI Classification of Systemic Lupus Erythematous Patients with and without Neuropsychiatric Events.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) and adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction V (ASIR-V) in improving the image quality of 40 keV virtual monochromatic images (VMIs) in dual-energy CT carotid angiography (DE-CTA) under a dual-low scan protocol.
methodsA prospective study was conducted between December 2024 and January 2025, involving a total of 100 patients who underwent DE-CTA at our institution. Patients were assigned into two distinct cohorts: Control Group (n = 50), scanned with a noise index (NI) of 4 and reconstructed using ASIR-V 50%; and Experimental Group (n = 50), scanned with a noise index (NI) of 11. For the Experimental Group, images were reconstructed using three different methods: ASIR-V 50%, DLIR at a medium-strength setting (DLIR-M), and DLIR at a high-strength setting (DLIR-H). Accordingly, the 50 patients in the Experimental Group were further categorized into Experimental Group 1 (EG 1) for ASIR-V 50%, Experimental Group 2 (EG 2) for DLIR-M, and Experimental Group 3 (EG 3) for DLIR-H. Thus, the same 50 patients contributed to all three experimental subgroups, while the Control Group remained independent with its 50 patients. Objective image quality was assessed at four anatomical levels (aortic arch, subclavian artery, common carotid artery, and internal carotid artery), with measurements of CT values (HU), image noise (SD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subjective image quality was independently evaluated by two experienced radiologists using a five-point Likert scale, focusing on noise, resolution, and overall image quality.
resultsAmong all reconstruction methods, DLIR-H yielded the lowest image noise and the highest SNR and CNR at all anatomical levels (P < 0.05). Subjective evaluation scores were significantly higher for DLIR-H, indicating superior image clarity, noise reduction, and overall diagnostic confidence (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in vascular CT values among the groups.
conclusionDLIR reconstruction improves the image quality of 40 keV VMIs in DE-CTA under dual-low scanning conditions, with a reduction in image noise and enhanced SNR and CNR, providing optimal image quality for diagnostic purposes at reduced radiation doses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41405722What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.