ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Applying MRI Intensity Normalization on Non-Bone Tissues to Facilitate Pseudo-CT Synthesis from MRI.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Learning CT-to-electron-density mapping for radiotherapy treatment planning using neural networks.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- A review of PET attenuation correction methods for PET-MR.EJNMMI physics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to facilitate pseudo-CT synthesis from MRI by normalizing MRI intensity of the same tissue type to a similar intensity level. MRI intensity normalization was conducted through dividing MRI by a shading map, which is a smoothed ratio image between MRI and a three-intensity mask. Regarding pseudo-CT synthesis from MRI, a conversion model based on a three-layer convolutional neural network was trained and validated. Before MRI intensity normalization, the mean value ± standard deviation of fat tissue in 0.35 T chest MRI was 297 ± 73 (coefficient of variation (CV) = 24.58%), which was 533 ± 91 (CV = 17.07%) in 1.5 T abdominal MRI. The corresponding results were 149 ± 32 (CV = 21.48%) and 148 ± 28 (CV = 18.92%) after intensity normalization. With regards to pseudo-CT synthesis from MRI, the differences in mean values between pseudo-CT and real CT were 3, 15, and 12 HU for soft tissue, fat, and lung/air in 0.35 T chest imaging, respectively, while the corresponding results were 3, 14, and 15 HU in 1.5 T abdominal imaging. Overall, the proposed workflow is reliable in pseudo-CT synthesis from MRI and is more practicable in clinical routine practice compared with deep learning methods, which demand a high level of resources for building a conversion model.
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.