Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520510›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Comparison of model-based versus deep learning-based image reconstruction for thin-slice T2-weighted spin-echo prostate MRI.

Stephen J Riederer, Eric A Borisch, Adam T Froemming, Akira Kawashima, Naoki Takahashi

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen J RiedererDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. riederer@mayo.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8045-910X
Eric A BorischDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0849-1487
Adam T FroemmingDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Akira KawashimaDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Naoki TakahashiDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic Hospital · US

Funding

EXTRAMURAL RES FACIL IMPROVEMENT PROG: POLYCYSTIC KIDNEY DISEASE, RENAL STUDIES,C06RR018898 · NCRR · MAYO CLINIC · PI BURNETT, JOHN C · 2004 to 2004
$2.3M
Super Resolution for Improved Multislice Prostate MRIR01EB031790 · NIBIB · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI RIEDERER, STEPHEN J · 2022 to 2025
$2.3M
National Center for Research Resources (US) RR018898NIBIB NIH HHS EB031790NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB031790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare a previous model-based image reconstruction (MBIR) with a newly developed deep learning (DL)-based image reconstruction for providing improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in high through-plane resolution (1 mm) T2-weighted spin-echo (T2SE) prostate MRI.

methodsLarge-area contrast and high-contrast spatial resolution of the reconstruction methods were assessed quantitatively in experimental phantom studies. The methods were next evaluated radiologically in 17 subjects at 3.0 Tesla for whom prostate MRI was clinically indicated. For each subject, the axial T2SE raw data were directed to MBIR and to the DL reconstruction at three vendor-provided levels: (L)ow, (M)edium, and (H)igh. Thin-slice images from the four reconstructions were compared using evaluation criteria related to SNR, sharpness, contrast fidelity, and reviewer preference. Results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test using Bonferroni correction, and inter-reader comparisons were done using the Cohen and Krippendorf tests.

resultsBaseline contrast and resolution in phantom studies were equivalent for all four reconstruction pathways as desired. In vivo, all three DL levels (L, M, H) provided improved SNR versus MBIR. For virtually, all other evaluation criteria DL L and M were superior to MBIR. DL L and M were evaluated as superior to DL H in fidelity of contrast. For 44 of the 51 evaluations, the DL M reconstruction was preferred.

conclusionThe deep learning reconstruction method provides significant SNR improvement in thin-slice (1 mm) T2SE images of the prostate while retaining image contrast. However, if taken to too high a level (DL High), both radiological sharpness and fidelity of contrast diminish.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsSignal-To-Noise RatioAgedHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedProstateDeep learningModel-based reconstructionProstate cancerProstate MRISuper-resolutionThin-slice T2-weighted spin echo

Identifiers

PMID38520510
PMCPMC11300170
OpenAlexW4393114110

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.