ArticleScientific reports2020
Strategies for rapid reconstruction in 3D MRI with radial data acquisition: 3D fast Fourier transform vs two-step 2D filtered back-projection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radial TRASE: 2D RF encoding through mechanical rotation and active digital decoupling.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative study of image quality, ADC, and IVIM data between multi-b value MUSE-DWI and SS-EPI-DWI in brain imaging.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Real-time radial reconstruction with domain transform manifold learning for MRI-guided radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Line scan-based rapid magnetic resonance imaging of repetitive motion.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For 3D radial data reconstruction in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), fast Fourier transform via gridding (gFFT) is widely used for its fast processing and flexibility. In comparison, conventional 3D filtered back projection (cFBP), while more robust against common radial k-space centering errors, suffers from long computation times and is less frequently used. In this study, we revisit another back-projection reconstruction strategy, namely two-step 2D filtered back-projection (tsFBP), as an alternative 3D radial MRI reconstruction method that combines computational efficiency and certain error tolerance. In order to compare the three methods (gFFT, cFBP, and tsFBP), theoretical analysis was performed to evaluate the number of computational steps involved in each method. Actual reconstruction times were also measured and compared using 3D radial-MRI data of a phantom and a human brain. Additionally, the sensitivity of tsFBP to artifacts caused by radial k-space centering errors was compared with the other methods. Compared to cFBP, tsFBP dramatically improved the reconstruction speed while retaining the benefit of tolerance to the radial k-space errors. Our study therefore suggests that tsFBP can be a promising alternative to the conventional back projection method for 3D radial MRI reconstruction.
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.