ArticleBMC medical imaging2021
Lesion probability mapping in MS patients using a regression network on MR fingerprinting.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Machine learning for refining interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging scans in the management of multiple sclerosis: a narrative review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Synthesis of MR fingerprinting information from magnitude-only MR imaging data using a parallelized, multi network U-Net convolutional neural network.Frontiers in radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo develop a regression neural network for the reconstruction of lesion probability maps on Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting using echo-planar imaging (MRF-EPI) in addition to [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], NAWM, and GM- probability maps.
methodsWe performed MRF-EPI measurements in 42 patients with multiple sclerosis and 6 healthy volunteers along two sites. A U-net was trained to reconstruct the denoised and distortion corrected [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] maps, and to additionally generate NAWM-, GM-, and WM lesion probability maps.
resultsWM lesions were predicted with a dice coefficient of [Formula: see text] and a lesion detection rate of [Formula: see text] for a threshold of 33%. The network jointly enabled accurate [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] times with relative deviations of 5.2% and 5.1% and average dice coefficients of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for NAWM and GM after binarizing with a threshold of 80%.
conclusionDL is a promising tool for the prediction of lesion probability maps in a fraction of time. These might be of clinical interest for the WM lesion analysis in MS patients.
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.