ArticleSkeletal radiology2023
Image quality and lesion detectability of deep learning-accelerated T2-weighted Dixon imaging of the cervical spine.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in MR neuroimaging: toward quantitative and AI-driven brain and spinal cord imaging.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Liver fat quantification at 0.55 T enabled by locally low-rank enforced deep learning reconstruction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Can artificial intelligence in spine imaging affect current practice? Practical developments and their clinical status.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction for Accelerated Cervical Spine MRI: Utility in the Evaluation of Myelopathy and Degenerative Diseases.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Optimizing hip MRI: enhancing image quality and elevating inter-observer consistency using deep learning-powered reconstruction.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Review
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
objectivesTo validate the subjective image quality and lesion detectability of deep learning-accelerated Dixon (DL-Dixon) imaging of the cervical spine compared with routine Dixon imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 50 patients underwent sagittal routine Dixon and DL-Dixon imaging of the cervical spine. Acquisition parameters were compared and non-uniformity (NU) values were calculated. Two radiologists independently assessed the two imaging methods for subjective image quality and lesion detectability. Interreader and intermethod agreements were estimated with weighted kappa values.
resultsCompared with the routine Dixon imaging, the DL-Dixon imaging reduced the acquisition time by 23.76%. The NU value is slightly higher in DL-Dixon imaging (p value: 0.015). DL-Dixon imaging showed superior visibility of all four anatomical structures (spinal cord, disc margin, dorsal root ganglion, and facet joint) for both readers (p value: < 0.001 ~ 0.002). The motion artifact scores were slightly higher in the DL-Dixon images than in routine Dixon images (p value = 0.785). Intermethod agreements were almost perfect for disc herniation, facet osteoarthritis, uncovertebral arthritis, central canal stenosis (κ range: 0.830 ~ 0.980, all p values < 0.001) and substantial to almost perfect for foraminal stenosis (κ = 0.955, 0.705 for each reader). There was an improvement in the interreader agreement of foraminal stenosis by DL-Dixon images, from moderate to substantial agreement.
conclusionThe DLR sequence can substantially decrease the acquisition time of the Dixon sequence with subjective image quality at least as good as the conventional sequence. And no significant differences in lesion detectability were observed between the two sequence types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37233758What 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.