ArticleRadiation medicine and protection2020
Motion robust 4D-MRI sorting based on anatomic feature matching: A digital phantom simulation study.
Article in Radiation medicine and protection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer-learning is a key ingredient to fast deep learning-based 4D liver MRI reconstruction.Scientific reports · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Motion artifacts induced by breathing variations are common in 4D-MRI images. This study aims to reduce the motion artifacts by developing a novel, robust 4D-MRI sorting method based on anatomic feature matching and applicable in both cine and sequential acquisition. Method: The proposed method uses the diaphragm as the anatomic feature to guide the sorting of 4D-MRI images. Initially, both abdominal 2D sagittal cine MRI images and axial MRI images were acquired. The sagittal cine MRI images were divided into 10 phases as ground truth. Next, the phase of each axial MRI image is determined by matching its diaphragm position in the intersection plane to the ground truth cine MRI. Then, those matched phases axial images were sorted into 10-phase bins which were identical to the ground truth cine images. Finally, 10-phase 4D-MRI were reconstructed from these sorted axial images. The accuracy of reconstructed 4D-MRI data was evaluated by comparing with the ground truth using the 4D extended Cardiac Torso (XCAT) digital phantom. The effects of breathing signal, including both regular (cosine function) and irregular (patient data) in both axial cine and sequential scanning modes, on reconstruction accuracy were investigated by calculating total relative error (TRE) of the 4D volumes, Volume-Percent-Difference (VPD) and Center-of-Mass-Shift (COMS) of the estimated tumor volume, compared with the ground truth XCAT images. Results: In both scanning modes, reconstructed 4D-MRI images matched well with ground truth with minimal motion artifacts. The averaged TRE of the 4D volume, VPD and COMS of the EOE phase in both scanning modes are 0.32%/1.20%/±0.05 mm for regular breathing, and 1.13%/4.26%/±0.21 mm for patient irregular breathing. Conclusion: The preliminary evaluation results illustrated the feasibility of the robust 4D-MRI sorting method based on anatomic feature matching. This method provides improved image quality with reduced motion artifacts for both cine and sequential scanning modes.
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.