ArticleZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2025
Assessment of resolution and noise in magnetic resonance images reconstructed by data driven approaches.
Article in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2025. 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.
- Using deep feature distances for evaluating the perceptual quality of MR image reconstructions.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep learning-based approaches are increasingly being used for the reconstruction of accelerated MRI scans. However, presented analyses are frequently lacking in-detail evaluation of basal measures like resolution or signal-to-noise ratio. To help closing this gap, spatially resolved maps of image resolution and noise enhancement (g-factor) are determined and assessed for typical model- and data-driven MR reconstruction methods in this paper.
methodsMR data from a routine brain scan of a patient were undersampled in retrospect at R = 4 and reconstructed using two data-driven (variational network (VN), U-Net) and two model based reconstructions methods (GRAPPA, TV-constrained compressed sensing). Local resolution was estimated by the width of the main-lobe of a local point-spread function, which was determined for every single pixel by reconstructing images with an additional small perturbation. G-factor maps were determined using a multiple replica method.
resultsGRAPPA showed good spatial resolution, but increased g-factors (1.43-1.84, 75% quartile) over all other methods. The images delivered from compressed sensing suffered most from low local resolution, in particular in homogeneous areas of the image. VN and U-Net show similar resolution with mostly moderate local blurring, slightly better for U-Net. For all methods except GRAPPA the resolution as well as the g-factors depend on the anatomy and the direction of undersampling.
conclusionObjective image quality parameters, local resolution and g-factors have been determined. The examined data driven methods show less local blurring than compressed sensing. The noise enhancement for reconstructions using CS, VN and U-Net is elevated at anatomical contours but is drastically reduced with respect to GRAPPA. Overall, the applied framework provides the possibility for more detailed analysis of novel reconstruction approaches incorporating non-linear and non-stationary transformations.
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.