ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Cerebrospinal fluid flow artifact reduction with deep learning to optimize the evaluation of spinal canal stenosis on spine MRI.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radon-Guided Wavelet-Domain Attention U-Net for Periodic Artifact Suppression in Brain MRI.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- A Fundamental Study on the Removal of Vascular Pulsation Artifacts Using U-Net-Based Deep Neural Network.Cureus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of study was to employ the Cycle Generative Adversarial Network (CycleGAN) deep learning model to diminish the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow artifacts in cervical spine MRI. We also evaluate the agreement in quantifying spinal canal stenosis.
methodsFor training model, we collected 9633 axial MR image pairs from 399 subjects. Then, additional 104 image pairs from 19 subjects were gathered for the test set. The deep learning model was developed using CycleGAN to reduce CSF flow artifacts, where T2 TSE images served as input, and T2 FFE images, known for fewer CSF flow artifacts. Post training, CycleGAN-generated images were subjected to both quantitative and qualitative evaluations for CSF artifacts. For assessing the agreement of spinal canal stenosis, four raters utilized an additional 104 pairs of original and CycleGAN-generated images, with inter-rater agreement evaluated using a weighted kappa value.
resultsCSF flow artifacts were reduced in the CycleGAN-generated images compared to the T2 TSE and FFE images in both quantitative and qualitative analysis. All raters concordantly displayed satisfactory estimation results when assessing spinal canal stenosis using the CycleGAN-generated images with T2 TSE images (kappa = 0.61-0.75) compared to the original FFE with T2 TSE images (kappa = 0.48-0.71).
conclusionsCycleGAN demonstrated the capability to produce images with diminished CSF flow artifacts. When paired with T2 TSE images, the CycleGAN-generated images allowed for more consistent assessment of spinal canal stenosis and exhibited agreement levels that were comparable to the combination of T2 TSE and FFE images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37996559What 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.