Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37219618›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

AI-assisted compressed sensing and parallel imaging sequences for MRI of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of their capabilities in terms of examination time and image quality.

Haibin Liu, Dele Deng, Weilong Zeng, Yingyi Huang, Chunling Zheng, Xinyang Li, Hui Li, Chuanmiao Xie, Haoqiang He, Guixiao Xu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07164651 (Prospective Application Study of Intelligent Accelerated Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children With Abdominal Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT07164651 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Application Study of Intelligent Accelerated Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Children With Abdominal Pain

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorYaqi Shen,MD,PhDRan2025 to 2027Enrolled150ConditionsPediatric Abdominal PainArmsAccelerated MRI scanning
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haibin LiuDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Dele DengDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Weilong ZengDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Yingyi HuangDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Chunling ZhengDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Xinyang LiUnited Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Hui LiDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Chuanmiao XieDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
Haoqiang HeDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. hehq@sysucc.org.cn.
Guixiao XuDepartment of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. xugx@sysucc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9672-6636
Sun Yat-sen University · CNUnited Imaging Healthcare (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare examination time and image quality between artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted compressed sensing (ACS) technique and parallel imaging (PI) technique in MRI of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

methodsSixty-six patients with pathologically confirmed NPC underwent nasopharynx and neck examination using a 3.0-T MRI system. Transverse T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) sequence, transverse T1-weighted FSE sequence, post-contrast transverse T1-weighted FSE sequence, and post-contrast coronal T1-weighted FSE were obtained by both ACS and PI techniques, respectively. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and duration of scanning of both sets of images analyzed by ACS and PI techniques were compared. The images from the ACS and PI techniques were scored for lesion detection, margin sharpness of lesions, artifacts, and overall image quality using the 5-point Likert scale.

resultsThe examination time with ACS technique was significantly shorter than that with PI technique (p < 0.0001). The comparison of SNR and CNR showed that ACS technique was significantly superior with PI technique (p < 0.005). Qualitative image analysis showed that the scores of lesion detection, margin sharpness of lesions, artifacts, and overall image quality were higher in the ACS sequences than those in the PI sequences (p < 0.0001). Inter-observer agreement was evaluated for all qualitative indicators for each method, in which the results showed satisfactory-to-excellent agreement (p < 0.0001).

conclusionCompared with the PI technique, the ACS technique for MR examination of NPC can not only shorten scanning time but also improve image quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted compressed sensing (ACS) technique shortens examination time for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma, while improving the image quality and examination success rate, which will benefit more patients. KEY POINTS: • Compared with the parallel imaging (PI) technique, the artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted compressed sensing (ACS) technique not only reduced examination time, but also improved image quality. • Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted compressed sensing (ACS) pulls the state-of-the-art deep learning technique into the reconstruction procedure and helps find an optimal balance of imaging speed and image quality.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsArtifactsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNasopharyngeal CarcinomaSignal-To-Noise RatioCompressed sensingMagnetic resonance imagingNasopharyngeal carcinomaParallel imaging

Identifiers

PMID37219618
PMCPMC10598173
OpenAlexW4377564372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.