| Title |
The effect of iterative model reconstruction on coronary artery calcium quantification
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10554-015-0740-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bálint Szilveszter, Hesham Elzomor, Mihály Károlyi, Márton Kolossváry, Rolf Raaijmakers, Kálmán Benke, Csilla Celeng, Andrea Bartykowszki, Zsolt Bagyura, Árpád Lux, Béla Merkely, Pál Maurovich-Horvat |
| Abstract |
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring with computed tomography (CT) is an established tool for quantifying calcified atherosclerotic plaque burden. Despite the widespread use of novel image reconstruction techniques in CT, the effect of iterative model reconstruction on CAC score remains unclear. We sought to assess the impact of iterative model based reconstruction (IMR) on coronary artery calcium quantification as compared to the standard filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm and hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR). In addition, we aimed to simulate the impact of iterative reconstruction techniques on calcium scoring based risk stratification of a larger asymptomatic population. We studied 63 individuals who underwent CAC scoring. Images were reconstructed with FBP, HIR and IMR and CAC scores were measured. We estimated the cardiovascular risk reclassification rate of IMR versus HIR and FBP in a larger asymptomatic population (n = 504). The median CAC scores were 147.7 (IQR 9.6-582.9), 107.0 (IQR 5.9-526.6) and 115.1 (IQR 9.3-508.3) for FBP, HIR and IMR, respectively. The HIR and IMR resulted in lower CAC scores as compared to FBP (both p < 0.001), however there was no difference between HIR and IMR (p = 0.855). The CAC score decreased by 7.2 % in HIR and 7.3 % in IMR as compared to FBP, resulting in a risk reclassification rate of 2.4 % for both HIR and IMR. The utilization of IMR for CAC scoring reduces the measured calcium quantity. However, the CAC score based risk stratification demonstrated modest reclassification in IMR and HIR versus FBP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 26% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 42% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,292
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,698
of 277,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#30
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.