ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2021
Seeking a Widely Adoptable Practical Standard to Estimate Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Multiple-Coil Reconstructions.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR Optimum: A web-based open-source tool for standardized signal-to-noise ratio evaluation in MRI.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine update · 2026Article
- Multinuclear NMR and MRI Beyond Proton Imaging: Principles, Contrast Mechanisms, and Applications in Materials and Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The effect of head coil configuration and channel count on the quality of double inversion recovery (DIR) MRI images.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Enhancement of in vivo 7T magnetic resonance neuroimaging via flexible metasurfaces.Npj imaging · 2026Article
- Subject grounding to reduce electromagnetic interference for MRI scanners operating in unshielded environments.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of sequence selection on postoperative MRI interpretability and artifact reduction in simulated mandibular trauma.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Broken Rotor Bar Fault Detection for Inverter-Fed Induction Motor with Negative-Sequence Current Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based acceleration of high-resolution compressed sense MR imaging of the hip.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Three-row MRI receive array with remote circuitry to preserve radiation transparency.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Customization of neonatal functional magnetic resonance imaging: A preclinical phantom-based study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Structural and functional fetal cardiac imaging using low field (0.55 T) MRI.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- A flexible MRI coil based on a cable conductor and applied to knee imaging.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSignal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is used to evaluate the performance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems. Accurate and consistent estimations are needed to routinely use SNR to assess coils and image reconstruction techniques. PURPOSE: To identify a reliable and practical method for SNR estimation in multiple-coil reconstructions. STUDY TYPE: Technical evaluation and comparison. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: A uniform phantom and four healthy volunteers: 35, 38, 39 y/o males, 25 y/o female. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two-dimensional multislice gradient-echo pulse sequence at 3 T and 7 T. ASSESSMENT: Reference-standard SNR was calculated from 100 multiple replicas. Six SNR methods were compared against it: difference image (DI), analytic array combination (AC), pseudo-multiple-replica (PMR), generalized pseudo-replica (GPR), smoothed image subtraction (SIS), and DI with temporal instability correction (TIC). The assessment was repeated for different multiple-coil reconstructions. STATISTICAL TESTS: SNR methods were evaluated in terms of relative deviation (RD) and normalized mutual information (NMI) with respect to the reference-standard, using a linear regression (0.05 significance level) to assess how different factors affect accuracy.
resultsAverage RD (phantom) for DI, AC, PMR, GPR, SIS, and TIC was 7.9%, 6%, 6.7%, 10.1%, 40%, and 14.6%, respectively. RD increased with acceleration. SNR maps with AC were the most similar to the reference standard (NMI = 0.358). Considering all brain regions of interest, average RD for all SNR methods varied 96% among volunteers but remained approximately 10% for AC, PMR, and GPR, whereas it was more than 30% for DI, SIS, and TIC. RD was mainly affected by image reconstruction (beta = 12) for AC and SNR entropy for SIS (beta = 19). DATA
conclusionAC provided accurate and robust SNR estimation. PMR and GPR are more generally applicable than AC. DI and TIC should be used only at low acceleration factors, when an additional noise-only scan cannot be acquired. SIS is a single-acquisition alternative to DI for generalized autocalibrating partial parallel acquisition (GRAPPA) reconstructions. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 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.