Clinical radiology · 2026
Deep learning reconstruction dual-energy computed tomography for gastrointestinal system tumors: low-kiloelectron volt imaging vs routine imaging.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Y, Yuan M, Liang H, You Y, Li J, Chen L, Sun X, Liu J, Lyu P, Gao J
Аннотация
AIM: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare dual-energy computed tomography (DECT)-derived 55 keV virtual monochromatic images (VMIs) using deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) with 70 keV VMIs using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASiR-V) in the Gastrointestinal (GI) system tumors and to investigate whether DLIR can influence the measured iodine parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study included 47 patients with GI system tumors who underwent DECT. Qualitative and quantitative assessment was performed on 70 keV VMIs using ASiR-V40%, and 55 keV VMIs using DLIR at low (DLIR-L), medium (DLIR-M), and high strength (DLIR-H). Quantitative evaluation included calculation of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence were evaluated qualitatively by 2 radiologists. Iodine parameters of tumor lesions were compared among four groups of algorithms.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the image noise between DLIR-M and ASiR-V40%, whereas image noise was significantly lower in DLIR-H than ASiR-V40% and DLIR-M (both phases, P < 0.001). DLIR-M and DLIR-H had significantly higher CNR and SNR compared with ASiR-V40% on both phases (all P ≤ 0.001). When compared to ASiR-V40%, DLIR-M and DLIR-H had similar or improved qualitative assessment metrics. DLIR-L yielded the highest image noise and the lowest overall image quality score among these algorithms. Lastly, the measured iodine parameters were equivalent among different algorithms (all P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION: Abdominal DECT at 55 keV with DLIR (-M and -H) provided qualitative and quantitative performance for GI tumor evaluation comparable to or exceeding that of ASiR-V 40% at 70 keV.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study included 47 patients with GI system tumors who underwent DECT. Qualitative and quantitative assessment was performed on 70 keV VMIs using ASiR-V40%, and 55 keV VMIs using DLIR at low (DLIR-L), medium (DLIR-M), and high strength (DLIR-H). Quantitative evaluation included calculation of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence were evaluated qualitatively by 2 radiologists. Iodine parameters of tumor lesions were compared among four groups of algorithms.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the image noise between DLIR-M and ASiR-V40%, whereas image noise was significantly lower in DLIR-H than ASiR-V40% and DLIR-M (both phases, P < 0.001). DLIR-M and DLIR-H had significantly higher CNR and SNR compared with ASiR-V40% on both phases (all P ≤ 0.001). When compared to ASiR-V40%, DLIR-M and DLIR-H had similar or improved qualitative assessment metrics. DLIR-L yielded the highest image noise and the lowest overall image quality score among these algorithms. Lastly, the measured iodine parameters were equivalent among different algorithms (all P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION: Abdominal DECT at 55 keV with DLIR (-M and -H) provided qualitative and quantitative performance for GI tumor evaluation comparable to or exceeding that of ASiR-V 40% at 70 keV.