Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36766523›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Conventional and Deep-Learning-Based Image Reconstructions of Undersampled K-Space Data of the Lumbar Spine Using Compressed Sensing in MRI: A Comparative Study on 20 Subjects.

Philipp Fervers, Charlotte Zaeske, Philip Rauen, Andra-Iza Iuga, Jonathan Kottlors, Thorsten Persigehl, Kristina Sonnabend, Kilian Weiss, Grischa Bratke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deep Learning-Based Image Reconstruction in Musculoskeletal MRI.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Deep Learning-based Image Enhancement Techniques for Fast MRI in Neuroimaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Philipp FerversInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Charlotte ZaeskeInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3746-8523
Philip RauenInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Andra-Iza IugaInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3694-0235
Jonathan KottlorsInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5021-6895
Thorsten PersigehlInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Kristina SonnabendPhilips GmbH Market DACH, 22335 Hamburg, Germany.
Kilian WeissPhilips GmbH Market DACH, 22335 Hamburg, Germany.
Grischa BratkeInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5696-9828

Funding

ministry of culture and science of North Rhine-Westphalia FF MED project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compressed sensing accelerates magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition by undersampling of the k-space. Yet, excessive undersampling impairs image quality when using conventional reconstruction techniques. Deep-learning-based reconstruction methods might allow for stronger undersampling and thus faster MRI scans without loss of crucial image quality. We compared imaging approaches using parallel imaging (SENSE), a combination of parallel imaging and compressed sensing (COMPRESSED SENSE, CS), and a combination of CS and a deep-learning-based reconstruction (CS AI) on raw k-space data acquired at different undersampling factors. 3D T2-weighted images of the lumbar spine were obtained from 20 volunteers, including a 3D sequence (standard SENSE), as provided by the manufacturer, as well as accelerated 3D sequences (undersampling factors 4.5, 8, and 11) reconstructed with CS and CS AI. Subjective rating was performed using a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate anatomical structures and overall image impression. Objective rating was performed using apparent signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratio (aSNR and aCNR) as well as root mean square error (RMSE) and structural-similarity index (SSIM). The CS AI 4.5 sequence was subjectively rated better than the standard in several categories and deep-learning-based reconstructions were subjectively rated better than conventional reconstructions in several categories for acceleration factors 8 and 11. In the objective rating, only aSNR of the bone showed a significant tendency towards better results of the deep-learning-based reconstructions. We conclude that CS in combination with deep-learning-based image reconstruction allows for stronger undersampling of k-space data without loss of image quality, and thus has potential for further scan time reduction.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecomputer-assistedimage processingmagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID36766523
PMCPMC9914543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.