ArticleSkeletal radiology2024
Improved Resolution and Image Quality of Musculoskeletal Magnetic Resonance Imaging using Deep Learning-based Denoising Reconstruction: A Prospective Clinical Study.
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 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.
- Zero echo time MRI with deep learning reconstruction and chemical shift correction for detecting osteolytic myeloma lesions.European radiology experimental · 2026Trial
- Enhancing resolution and image quality in musculoskeletal MRI using deep learning reconstruction.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Recent topics in musculoskeletal imaging focused on clinical applications of AI: How should radiologists approach and use AI?La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively evaluate a deep learning-based denoising reconstruction (DLR) for improved resolution and image quality in musculoskeletal (MSK) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsImages from 137 contrast-weighted sequences in 40 MSK patients were evaluated. Each sequence was performed twice, first with the routine parameters and reconstructed with a routine reconstruction filter (REF), then with higher resolution and reconstructed with DLR, and with three conventional reconstruction filters (NL2, GA43, GA53). The five reconstructions (REF, DLR, NL2, GA43, and GA53) were de-identified, randomized, and blindly reviewed by three MSK radiologists using eight scoring criteria and a forced ranking. Quantitative SNR, CNR, and structure's full width at half maximum (FWHM) for resolution assessment were measured and compared. To account for repeated measures, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with Bonferroni adjustment was used to compare the reader's scores, SNR, CNR, and FWHM between DLR vs. NL2, GA43, GA53, and REF.
resultsCompared to the routine REF images, the resolution was improved by 47.61% with DLR from 0.39 ± 0.15 mm
conclusionThis prospective clinical evaluation demonstrated that DLR allows approximately two times finer resolution and improved image quality compared to the standard-of-care images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38653786What 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.