ArticleScientific reports2023
Deep learning phase error correction for cerebrovascular 4D flow MRI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Simultaneous and synchronous characterization of blood and CSF flow dynamics using multiple Venc PC MRI.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background phase errors in 4D Flow MRI may negatively impact blood flow quantification. In this study, we assessed their impact on cerebrovascular flow volume measurements, evaluated the benefit of manual image-based correction, and assessed the potential of a convolutional neural network (CNN), a form of deep learning, to directly infer the correction vector field. With IRB waiver of informed consent, we retrospectively identified 96 MRI exams from 48 patients who underwent cerebrovascular 4D Flow MRI from October 2015 to 2020. Flow measurements of the anterior, posterior, and venous circulation were performed to assess inflow-outflow error and the benefit of manual image-based phase error correction. A CNN was then trained to directly infer the phase-error correction field, without segmentation, from 4D Flow volumes to automate correction, reserving from 23 exams for testing. Statistical analyses included Spearman correlation, Bland-Altman, Wilcoxon-signed rank (WSR) and F-tests. Prior to correction, there was strong correlation between inflow and outflow (ρ = 0.833-0.947) measurements with the largest discrepancy in the venous circulation. Manual phase error correction improved inflow-outflow correlation (ρ = 0.945-0.981) and decreased variance (p < 0.001, F-test). Fully automated CNN correction was non-inferior to manual correction with no significant differences in correlation (ρ = 0.971 vs ρ = 0.982) or bias (p = 0.82, Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test) of inflow and outflow measurements. Residual background phase error can impair inflow-outflow consistency of cerebrovascular flow volume measurements. A CNN can be used to directly infer the phase-error vector field to fully automate phase error correction.
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.