ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Clinical value of dual low-dose computed tomography angiography incorporating artificial intelligence iterative reconstruction for assessing arteriovenous fistulas/grafts among hemodialysis patients.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Upper extremity computed tomography angiography (CTA) plays an important role in evaluating arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft (AVF/AVG) dysfunction in hemodialysis patients, but conventional protocols are associated with substantial radiation exposure and contrast load, raising concerns in this vulnerable population requiring repeated imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical value of dual low-dose upper extremity CTA incorporating artificial intelligence iterative reconstruction (AIIR) for AVF/AVG assessment in hemodialysis patients. Methods: One hundred and two patients (mean age, 60.33±13.60 years, 52 men) with suspected AVF/AVG dysfunction were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo either routine-dose CTA (Group A, 100 kVp, 1.0 mL/kg contrast, hybrid iterative reconstruction; n=51) or low-dose CTA (Group B, 80 kVp, 0.6 mL/kg contrast, AIIR; n=51). Qualitative and quantitative results were analyzed and compared. Among these patients, only 44 patients (176 segments) underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) serving as the reference standard. The diagnostic performance for detecting significant stenosis (>50%) was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Results: Demographic characteristics were comparable between two groups (all P>0.05). Group B reduced radiation and contrast doses by 52.2% and 40.5%, respectively, compared to Group A. Qualitative scores showed no significant difference between the two groups (all P>0.05). Quantitatively, Group B exhibited approximately 165% and 162% improvement in signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio over Group A, respectively (all P<0.001). Per-segment and per-patient analyses demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (98% and 95%, respectively), with excellent CTA-DSA agreement for stenosis grading (ICC >0.90 across all evaluated segments). GEE analysis showed no significant difference between groups in detecting significant stenosis (odd ratio =0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.14; P=0.899). Conclusions: Dual low-dose CTA with AIIR significantly reduces radiation and contrast doses, while providing superior image quality and preserving diagnostic confidence for evaluating AVF/AVG stenosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.