ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2021
Denoising and Multiple Tissue Compartment Visualization of Multi-b-Valued Breast Diffusion MRI.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Skeletal Muscle: Review and Future Directions.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Review
- Diffusion MRI fiber diameter for muscle denervation assessment.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulti-b-valued/multi-shell diffusion provides potentially valuable metrics in breast MRI but suffers from low signal-to-noise ratio and has potentially long scan times. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of model-based denoising with no loss of spatial resolution on multi-shell breast diffusion MRI; to determine the effects of downsampling on multi-shell diffusion; and to quantify these effects in multi-b-valued (three directions per b-value) acquisitions. STUDY TYPE: Prospective ("fully-sampled" multi-shell) and retrospective longitudinal (multi-b). SUBJECTS: One normal subject (multi-shell) and 10 breast cancer subjects imaging at four timepoints (multi-b). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T multi-shell acquisition and 1.5T multi-b acquisition. ASSESSMENT: The "fully-sampled" multi-shell acquisition was retrospectively downsampled to determine the bias and error from downsampling. Mean, axial/parallel, radial diffusivity, and fractional anisotropy (FA) were analyzed. Denoising was applied retrospectively to the multi-b-valued breast cancer subject dataset and assessed subjectively for image noise level and tumor conspicuity. STATISTICAL TESTS: Parametric paired t-test (P < 0.05 considered statistically significant) on mean and coefficient of variation of each metric-the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from all b-values, fast ADC, slow ADC, and perfusion fraction. Paired and two-sample t-tests for each metric comparing normal and tumor tissue.
resultsIn the multi-shell data, denoising effectively suppressed FA (-45% to -78%), with small biases in mean diffusivity (-5% in normal, +23% in tumor, and -4% in vascular compartments). In the multi-b data, denoising resulted in small biases to the ADC metrics in tumor and normal contralateral tissue (by -3% to +11%), but greatly reduced the coefficient of variation for every metric (by -1% to -24%). Denoising improved differentiation of tumor and normal tissue regions in most metrics and timepoints; subjectively, image noise level and tumor conspicuity were improved in the fast ADC maps. DATA
conclusionModel-based denoising effectively suppressed erroneously high FA and improved the accuracy of diffusivity metrics. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.