Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| The Second Hospital of Nanjing Medical University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the new features of Incisive CT: Precise Image, (PI) and Precise Cardiac (PC) had the expected effectiveness
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Using PI/PC reconstruct raw data |
| |
| Control Group | Using Idose4/Cardiac Image reconstruct raw data |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT Image reconstruction | Other | Retrospectively collects CT Images and reconstruct using PI/PC and Idose4/Cardiac Images to assessment the performance of the two new software functions of Incisive CT. No direct intervention to patients. And ICF is exempted by EC. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| The quality of PI/PC and iDose4/ cardiac imaging reconstructed images was basically equal or above 3 score | Scoring criteria 5 points The image quality of PI/PC is better than that of iDose4/ cardiac imaging, which can be used for diagnosis, very satisfied 4 points The image quality of PI/PC is better than that of contrast products, and the image of iDose4/ cardiac imaging can be used for diagnosis, satisfactory 3 points The image quality of PI/PC is basically equivalent to that of iDose4/ cardiac imaging. The image quality is defective, which does not affect the diagnosis, but is normal 2. The image quality of PI/PC is not lower than iDose4/ cardiac imaging, but the image quality is poor, which affects the diagnosis and is not satisfactory 1 points The image quality is lower than iDose4/ cardiac imaging after using PI/PC, the image quality is poor, cannot diagnose, unsatisfactory | through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Imaging reconstruction enhancement condition using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score enhancement 5 points - Very satisfied very clear and good, can be used for diagnosis 4 points - Satisfaction is clear and good and can be used for diagnosis 3 points - Generally defective, acceptable, without affecting diagnosis 2 points - Unsatisfactory enhancement is poor, affecting diagnosis 1 point - Unsatisfactory enhancement is poor and cannot be diagnosed |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
- The investigator deemed it inappropriate to include the original image data for this clinical trial
Not provided
Not provided
The original data of the images are from the patient base in the age range of 18 to 75 years (18≤ age ≤75 years)
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Zhao | Contact | 15000771460 | Kevin.ZHAO_1@philips.com |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Du, Deputy Director | The Second Hospital of Nanjing Medical University | Principal Investigator |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Imaging reconstruction diagnostic confidence using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score diagnostic confidence 5 points - Very satisfied the lesion or tissue structure is shown very clearly and can be used for diagnosis Score 4 - Satisfied that the lesion or tissue structure is clearly displayed and can be used for diagnosis 3 points - Generally the lesion or tissue structure is shown with acceptable clarity and does not affect the diagnosis 2 points - unsatisfactory lesion or tissue structure showing poorly, affecting diagnosis 1 point - Unsatisfactory lesion or tissue structure is not clearly displayed and cannot be diagnosed | through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Imaging reconstruction clarity using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score clarity 5 points - Very satisfied with the clear edge, the details show very clear and clear and can be used for diagnosis 4 points - Satisfied with a clear edge, showing clear and clear details that can be used for diagnosis 3 points - General clarity acceptable without prejudice to diagnosis 2 points - Undersatisfied edges and details show smooth, unclear, affecting diagnosis 1 point - Unsatisfied edges and detail display that is too smooth and unclear to affect diagnosis | through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Imaging reconstruction Noise level using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score noise level 5 points - Very satisfied with very low or no noise, can be used for diagnosis 4 points - Satisfied with low or mild noise, can be used for diagnosis 3 points - General The noise value is normal, acceptable and does not affect the diagnosis 2 points - unsatisfactory high noise, affecting diagnosis 1 point - Dissatisfaction with high noise and excessive noise that affects diagnosis | through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Imaging reconstruction Image texture using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score image texture 5 points - Very satisfied with texture very clear, intuitive feel similar to high dose scan image quality, can be used for diagnosis 4 points - Satisfied with clear texture and good image quality for diagnostic purposes 3 points - General texture is normal, image edges or some areas of speckled blur or smoothness, but acceptable, does not affect the diagnosis Score 2 - An undersatisfied image has acceptable speckled blurring that will not be misdiagnosed as lesions and affect the diagnosis 1 point - Unsatisfactory image texture and poor texture, blotchy, affecting diagnosis | through study completion, an average of 2months |
| Imaging reconstruction Image artifacts using PI/PC compared with using iDose4/ cardiac basically equivalence to or above 3 score | Score image artifacts 5 points - Very satisfied no artifacts, can be used for diagnosis 4 points - Satisfied with few artifacts, can be used for diagnosis 3 points - Generally acceptable artifacts that do not affect diagnosis 2 points - undersatisfaction has some artifacts that affect diagnosis 1 point - Unsatisfied with severe artifacts that affect diagnosis | through study completion, an average of 2months |