In vivo coronary artery plaque assessment with computed tomography angiography: is there an impact of iterative reconstruction on plaque volume and attenuation metrics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) allows the evaluation of coronary plaque volume and low attenuation (lipid-rich) component, for plaque vulnerability assessment. Purpose To determine the effect of iterative reconstruction (IR) on coronary plaque volume and composition. Material and Methods Consecutive patients without coronary artery disease were prospectively enrolled for 256-slice CT. Images were reconstructed with both filtered back projection (FBP) and a hybrid IR algorithm (iDose 4 , Philips) levels 1, 3, 5, and 7. Coronary plaques were assessed according to predefined Hounsfield unit (HU) attenuation intervals, for total plaque and HU-interval volumes. Results Fifty-three patients (mean age, 53.6 years) were included. Noise was significantly decreased and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) / contrast-to-noise (CNR) were both significantly improved at all IR levels in comparison to FBP. Plaque characterization was performed in 41 patients for a total of 125 plaques. Total plaque volume ranged from 104.4 ± 120.7 to 107.4 ± 128.9 mm 3 and low attenuation plaque component from 40.5 ± 54.7 to 43.5 ± 58.9 mm 3 , with no statistically significant differences between all IR levels and FBP ( P = 0.786 and P ≥ 0.078, respectively). Conclusion IR improved image quality. Total and low attenuation plaque volumes were similar using either IR or FBP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".