ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2024
Learning to deep learning: statistics and a paradigm test in selecting a UNet architecture to enhance MRI.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radon-Guided Wavelet-Domain Attention U-Net for Periodic Artifact Suppression in Brain MRI.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- In-silico comparison of a diffusion model with conventionally trained deep networks for translating 64mT to 3T brain FLAIR.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Let UNet Play an Adversarial Game: Investigating the Effect of Adversarial Training in Enhancing Low-Resolution MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning for the harmonization of structural MRI scans: a survey.Biomedical engineering online · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to assess the statistical significance of training parameters in 240 dense UNets (DUNets) used for enhancing low Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and undersampled MRI in various acquisition protocols. The objective is to determine the validity of differences between different DUNet configurations and their impact on image quality metrics. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo achieve this, we trained all DUNets using the same learning rate and number of epochs, with variations in 5 acquisition protocols, 24 loss function weightings, and 2 ground truths. We calculated evaluation metrics for two metric regions of interest (ROI). We employed both Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Mixed Effects Model (MEM) to assess the statistical significance of the independent parameters, aiming to compare their efficacy in revealing differences and interactions among fixed parameters.
resultsANOVA analysis showed that, except for the acquisition protocol, fixed variables were statistically insignificant. In contrast, MEM analysis revealed that all fixed parameters and their interactions held statistical significance. This emphasizes the need for advanced statistical analysis in comparative studies, where MEM can uncover finer distinctions often overlooked by ANOVA. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the importance of utilizing appropriate statistical analysis when comparing different deep learning models. Additionally, the surprising effectiveness of the UNet architecture in enhancing various acquisition protocols underscores the potential for developing improved methods for characterizing and training deep learning models. This study serves as a stepping stone toward enhancing the transparency and comparability of deep learning techniques for medical imaging applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37989921What 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.