Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31593328›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020

Deep learning-based MR-to-CT synthesis: The influence of varying gradient echo-based MR images as input channels.

Mateusz C Florkow, Frank Zijlstra, Koen Willemsen, Matteo Maspero, Cornelis A T van den Berg, Linda G W Kerkmeijer, René M Castelein, Harrie Weinans, Max A Viergever, Marijn van Stralen and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. AI in Proton Therapy Treatment Planning: A Narrative Review.International journal of particle therapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Deep-learning reconstructed lumbar spine 3D MRI for surgical planning: pedicle screw placement and geometric measurements compared to CT.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mateusz C FlorkowImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2520-7705
Frank ZijlstraImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9184-7666
Koen WillemsenDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Matteo MasperoDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0347-3375
Cornelis A T van den BergDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Linda G W KerkmeijerDepartment of Radiotherapy, Division of Imaging & Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
René M CasteleinDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Harrie WeinansDepartment of Orthopedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Max A ViergeverImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Marijn van StralenImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Peter R SeevinckImage Sciences Institute, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo study the influence of gradient echo-based contrasts as input channels to a 3D patch-based neural network trained for synthetic CT (sCT) generation in canine and human populations.

methodsMagnetic resonance images and CT scans of human and canine pelvic regions were acquired and paired using nonrigid registration. Magnitude MR images and Dixon reconstructed water, fat, in-phase and opposed-phase images were obtained from a single T

resultsSeventeen canines and 23 human subjects were included in the study. Performance and repeatability of single-channel models were dependent on the TE-related water-fat interference with variations of up to 17% in mean absolute error, and variations of up to 28% specifically in bones. Repeatability, Dice similarity coefficient, and mean absolute error were statistically significantly better in multichannel models with mean absolute error ranging from 33 to 40 Hounsfield units in humans and from 35 to 47 Hounsfield units in canines.

conclusionSignificant differences in performance and robustness of deep learning models for synthetic CT generation were observed depending on the input. In-phase images outperformed opposed-phase images, and Dixon reconstructed multichannel inputs outperformed single-channel inputs.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Processing, Computer-AssistedAnimalsDogsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural Networks, ComputerTomography, X-Ray Computeddeep learninggradient echoMR contrastssynthetic CT

Identifiers

PMID31593328
PMCPMC6972695
OpenAlexW2979318050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.