Coronary Stent Artifact Reduction with an Edge-Enhancing Reconstruction Kernel – A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study with 256-Slice CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Metallic artifacts can result in an artificial thickening of the coronary stent wall which can significantly impair computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients with coronary stents. The objective of this study is to assess in vivo visualization of coronary stent wall and lumen with an edge-enhancing CT reconstruction kernel, as compared to a standard kernel. METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional study involving the assessment of 71 coronary stents (24 patients), with blinded observers. After 256-slice CT angiography, image reconstruction was done with medium-smooth and edge-enhancing kernels. Stent wall thickness was measured with both orthogonal and circumference methods, averaging thickness from diameter and circumference measurements, respectively. Image quality was assessed quantitatively using objective parameters (noise, signal to noise (SNR) and contrast to noise (CNR) ratios), as well as visually using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Stent wall thickness was decreased with the edge-enhancing kernel in comparison to the standard kernel, either with the orthogonal (0.97 ± 0.02 versus 1.09 ± 0.03 mm, respectively; p<0.001) or the circumference method (1.13 ± 0.02 versus 1.21 ± 0.02 mm, respectively; p = 0.001). The edge-enhancing kernel generated less overestimation from nominal thickness compared to the standard kernel, both with the orthogonal (0.89 ± 0.19 versus 1.00 ± 0.26 mm, respectively; p<0.001) and the circumference (1.06 ± 0.26 versus 1.13 ± 0.31 mm, respectively; p = 0.005) methods. The edge-enhancing kernel was associated with lower SNR and CNR, as well as higher background noise (all p < 0.001), in comparison to the medium-smooth kernel. Stent visual scores were higher with the edge-enhancing kernel (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In vivo 256-slice CT assessment of coronary stents shows that the edge-enhancing CT reconstruction kernel generates thinner stent walls, less overestimation from nominal thickness, and better image quality scores than the standard kernel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".