Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128256›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2024

Quality of T2-weighted MRI re-acquisition versus deep learning GAN image reconstruction: A multi-reader study.

Mason J Belue, Stephanie A Harmon, Samira Masoudi, Tristan Barrett, Yan Mee Law, Andrei S Purysko, Valeria Panebianco, Enis C Yilmaz, Yue Lin, Pavan Kumar Jadda and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Mason J BelueMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Stephanie A HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Samira MasoudiUniversity of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Tristan BarrettDepartment of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Yan Mee LawDepartment of Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Andrei S PuryskoSection of Abdominal Imaging, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Valeria PanebiancoDepartment of Radiology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Enis C YilmazMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Yue LinMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Pavan Kumar JaddaCenter for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sitarama RaaviCenter for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA; Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.
National Cancer Institute · USCenter for Information Technology · USNational Institutes of Health · USCleveland Clinic · USNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USSapienza University of Rome · ITSingapore General Hospital · SGUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZIABC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$49.2M
Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
Navigation Tools for Image Guided Minimally invasive TherapiesZIACL040011 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Artificial Intelligence with Chest Imaging in COVID-19 and Isolation and Ventilator Devices for COVID-19ZIACL090072 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2020 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC012062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate CycleGAN's ability to enhance T2-weighted image (T2WI) quality.

methodA CycleGAN algorithm was used to enhance T2WI quality. 96 patients (192 scans) were identified from patients who underwent multiple axial T2WI due to poor quality on the first attempt (RAD1) and improved quality on re-acquisition (RAD2). CycleGAN algorithm gave DL classifier scores (0-1) for quality quantification and produced enhanced versions of QI1 and QI2 from RAD1 and RAD2, respectively. A subset (n = 20 patients) was selected for a blinded, multi-reader study, where four radiologists rated T2WI on a scale of 1-4 for quality. The multi-reader study presented readers with 60 image pairs (RAD1 vs RAD2, RAD1 vs QI1, and RAD2 vs QI2), allowing for selecting sequence preferences and quantifying the quality changes.

resultsThe DL classifier correctly discerned 71.9 % of quality classes, with 90.6 % (96/106) as poor quality and 48.8 % (42/86) as diagnostic in original sequences (RAD1, RAD2). CycleGAN images (QI1, QI2) demonstrated quantitative improvements, with consistently higher DL classifier scores than original scans (p < 0.001). In the multi-reader analysis, CycleGAN demonstrated no qualitative improvements, with diminished overall quality and motion in QI2 in most patients compared to RAD2, with noise levels remaining similar (8/20). No readers preferred QI2 to RAD2 for diagnosis.

conclusionDespite quantitative enhancements with CycleGAN, there was no qualitative boost in T2WI diagnostic quality, noise, or motion. Expert radiologists didn't favor CycleGAN images over standard scans, highlighting the divide between quantitative and qualitative metrics.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingArtificial IntelligenceDiagnostic ImagingGenerative Adversarial NetworksImage QualityMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID38128256
PMCPMC10842312
OpenAlexW4389627715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.