ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2022
Deep grey matter quantitative susceptibility mapping from small spatial coverages using deep learning.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2022. 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.
- Sensitivity of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Clinical Research in Deep Gray Matter.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- BFRnet: A deep learning-based MR background field removal method for QSM of the brain containing significant pathological susceptibility sources.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) is generally acquired with full brain coverage, even though many QSM brain-iron studies focus on the deep grey matter (DGM) region only. Reducing the spatial coverage to the DGM vicinity can substantially shorten the scan time or enhance the spatial resolution without increasing scan time; however, this may lead to significant DGM susceptibility underestimation.
methodA recently proposed deep learning-based QSM method, namely xQSM, is investigated to assess the accuracy of dipole inversion on reduced brain coverages. The xQSM method is compared with two conventional dipole inversion methods using simulated and in vivo experiments from 4 healthy subjects at 3T. Pre-processed magnetic field maps are extended symmetrically from the centre of globus pallidus in the coronal plane to simulate QSM acquisitions of difference spatial coverages, ranging from 100% (∼32mm) to 400% (∼128mm) of the actual DGM physical size.
resultsThe proposed xQSM network led to the lowest DGM contrast loss in both simulated and in vivo subjects, with the smallest susceptibility variation range across all spatial coverages. For the digital brain phantom simulation, xQSM improved the DGM susceptibility underestimation more than 20% in small spatial coverages, as compared to conventional methods. For the in vivo acquisition, less than 5% DGM susceptibility error was achieved in 48mm axial slabs using the xQSM network, while a minimum of 112mm coverage was required for conventional methods. It is also shown that the background field removal process performed worse in reduced brain coverages, which further deteriorated the subsequent dipole inversion.
conclusionThe recently proposed deep learning-based xQSM method significantly improves the accuracy of DGM QSM from small spatial coverages as compared with conventional QSM algorithms, which can shorten DGM QSM acquisition time substantially.
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.