ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Diffusion probabilistic versus generative adversarial models to reduce contrast agent dose in breast MRI.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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.
- A deep learning model to reduce agent dose for contrast-enhanced MRI of the cerebellopontine angle cistern.European radiology · 2026Article
- Simulating dynamic tumor contrast enhancement in breast MRI using conditional generative adversarial networks.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Virtual contrast-enhanced maximum intensity projections from high-b-value diffusion-weighted breast MRI: a feasibility study.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- AI for image quality and patient safety in CT and MRI.European radiology experimental · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundTo compare denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPM) and generative adversarial networks (GAN) for recovering contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) subtraction images from virtual low-dose subtraction images.
methodsRetrospective, ethically approved study. DDPM- and GAN-reconstructed single-slice subtraction images of 50 breasts with enhancing lesions were compared to original ones at three dose levels (25%, 10%, 5%) using quantitative measures and radiologic evaluations. Two radiologists stated their preference based on the reconstruction quality and scored the lesion conspicuity as compared to the original, blinded to the model. Fifty lesion-free maximum intensity projections were evaluated for the presence of false-positives. Results were compared between models and dose levels, using generalized linear mixed models.
resultsAt 5% dose, both radiologists preferred the GAN-generated images, whereas at 25% dose, both radiologists preferred the DDPM-generated images. Median lesion conspicuity scores did not differ between GAN and DDPM at 25% dose (5 versus 5, p = 1.000) and 10% dose (4 versus 4, p = 1.000). At 5% dose, both readers assigned higher conspicuity to the GAN than to the DDPM (3 versus 2, p = 0.007). In the lesion-free examinations, DDPM and GAN showed no differences in the false-positive rate at 5% (15% versus 22%), 10% (10% versus 6%), and 25% (6% versus 4%) (p = 1.000).
conclusionsBoth GAN and DDPM yielded promising results in low-dose image reconstruction. However, neither of them showed superior results over the other model for all dose levels and evaluation metrics. Further development is needed to counteract false-positives. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For MRI-based breast cancer screening, reducing the contrast agent dose is desirable. Diffusion probabilistic models and generative adversarial networks were capable of retrospectively enhancing the signal of low-dose images. Hence, they may supplement imaging with reduced doses in the future. KEY POINTS: • Deep learning may help recover signal in low-dose contrast-enhanced breast MRI. • Two models (DDPM and GAN) were trained at different dose levels. • Radiologists preferred DDPM at 25%, and GAN images at 5% dose. • Lesion conspicuity between DDPM and GAN was similar, except at 5% dose. • GAN and DDPM yield promising results in low-dose image reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.