ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Image quality and acquisition time assessments for phase oversampling in compressed sensing sensitivity encoding: Comparison with conventional SENSE.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of image quality evaluation methods for magnetic resonance imaging using compressed sensing-sensitivity encoding (CS-SENSE).Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Endovaginal coil for pelvic high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of cervical cancer: a preliminary parameter optimization study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Image quality and acquisition time assessments for phase oversampling in compressed sensing sensitivity encoding: Comparison with conventional SENSE.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared sensitivity encoding (SENSE) and compressed sensing sensitivity encoding (CS-SENSE) for phase oversampling distance and assessed its impact on image quality and image acquisition time. The experiment was performed with a large diameter phantom using 16-channel anterior body coils. All imaging data were divided into three groups according to the parallel imaging technique and oversampling distances: groups A (SENSE with phase oversampling distance of 150 mm), B (CS-SENSE with phase oversampling distance of 100 mm), and C (CS-SENSE with phase oversampling distance of 75 mm). No statistically significant differences were observed among groups A, B, and C regarding both T2 and T1 turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequences using an acceleration factor (AF) of 2 (p = 0.301 and 0.289, respectively). In comparison with AF 2 of group A, the scan time of AF 2 of groups B and C was reduced by 11.2% and 23.5% (T2 TSE) and 15.8% and 22.7% (T1 TSE), respectively, while providing comparable image quality. Significant image noise and aliasing artifact were more evident at AF
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.