Blooming Artifact Reduction in Coronary Artery Calcification by A New De-blooming Algorithm: Initial Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the use of de-blooming algorithm in coronary CT angiography (CCTA) for optimal evaluation of calcified plaques. Calcified plaques were simulated on a coronary vessel phantom and a cardiac motion phantom. Two convolution kernels, standard (STND) and high-definition standard (HD STND), were used for imaging reconstruction. A dedicated de-blooming algorithm was used for imaging processing. We found a smaller bias towards measurement of stenosis using the de-blooming algorithm (STND: bias 24.6% vs 15.0%, range 10.2% to 39.0% vs 4.0% to 25.9%; HD STND: bias 17.9% vs 11.0%, range 8.9% to 30.6% vs 0.5% to 21.5%). With use of de-blooming algorithm, specificity for diagnosing significant stenosis increased from 45.8% to 75.0% (STND), from 62.5% to 83.3% (HD STND); while positive predictive value (PPV) increased from 69.8% to 83.3% (STND), from 76.9% to 88.2% (HD STND). In the patient group, reduction in calcification volume was 48.1 ± 10.3%, reduction in coronary diameter stenosis over calcified plaque was 52.4 ± 24.2%. Our results suggest that the novel de-blooming algorithm could effectively decrease the blooming artifacts caused by coronary calcified plaques, and consequently improve diagnostic accuracy of CCTA in assessing coronary stenosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".