ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
SENSE EPI reconstruction with 2D phase error correction and channel-wise noise removal.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Offline Reconstruction of Diffusion MRI Acquisitions for Comparison Between Complex PCA-Based and AI-Based Denoising.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Hierarchical Bayesian Modelling Improves Microstructural Parameter Mapping in Diffusion and Exchange MRI Data.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Exploiting four-way phase-encoding benefits for robust detection and correction of EPI artifacts: Application to residual ghosts in diffusion MRI.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2025Article
- High-resolution prostate diffusion MRI using eddy current-nulled convex optimized diffusion encoding and random matrix theory-based denoising.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- SENSE EPI reconstruction with 2D phase error correction and channel-wise noise removal.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- What's new and what's next in diffusion MRI preprocessing.NeuroImage · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop a robust reconstruction pipeline for EPI data that enables 2D Nyquist phase error correction using sensitivity encoding without incurring major noise artifacts in low SNR data.
methodsSENSE with 2D phase error correction (PEC-SENSE) was combined with channel-wise noise removal using Marcenko-Pastur principal component analysis (MPPCA) to simultaneously eliminate Nyquist ghost artifacts in EPI data and mitigate the noise amplification associated with phase correction using parallel imaging. The proposed pipeline (coined SPECTRE) was validated in phantom DW-EPI data using the accuracy and precision of diffusion metrics; ground truth values were obtained from data acquired with a spin echo readout. Results from the SPECTRE pipeline were compared against PEC-SENSE reconstructions with three alternate denoising strategies: (i) no denoising; (ii) denoising of magnitude data after image formation; (iii) denoising of complex data after image formation. SPECTRE was then tested using high
resultsNoise amplification associated with phase error correction incurred a 23% bias in phantom mean diffusivity (MD) measurements. Phantom MD estimates using the SPECTRE pipeline were within 8% of the ground truth value. In healthy volunteers, the SPECTRE pipeline visibly corrected Nyquist ghost artifacts and reduced associated noise amplification in high
conclusionThe proposed reconstruction pipeline is effective in correcting low SNR data, and improves the accuracy and precision of derived diffusion metrics.
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.