Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38711678›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024

Advanced deep learning-based image reconstruction in lumbar spine MRI at 0.55 T - Effects on image quality and acquisition time in comparison to conventional deep learning-based reconstruction.

Felix Schlicht, Jan Vosshenrich, Ricardo Donners, Alina Carolin Seifert, Matthias Fenchel, Dominik Nickel, Markus Obmann, Dorothee Harder, Hanns-Christian Breit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Deep Learning-Based Image Reconstruction in Musculoskeletal MRI.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Clinical MR imaging of patients with spinal hardware at 0.55T: comparison of diagnostic assessment and metal artifact appearance with 1.5T.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Felix SchlichtDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Jan VosshenrichDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Ricardo DonnersDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Alina Carolin SeifertDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Matthias FenchelSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Magnetic Resonance, Allee am Röthelheimpark 2, Erlangen 91052, Germany.
Dominik NickelSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Magnetic Resonance, Allee am Röthelheimpark 2, Erlangen 91052, Germany.
Markus ObmannDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Dorothee HarderDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.
Hanns-Christian BreitDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, Basel 4031, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate an optimized deep leaning-based image post-processing technique in lumbar spine MRI at 0.55 T in terms of image quality and image acquisition time. Materials and methods: Lumbar spine imaging was conducted on 18 patients using a 0.55 T MRI scanner, employing conventional (CDLR) and advanced (ADLR) deep learning-based post-processing techniques. Two musculoskeletal radiologists visually evaluated the images using a 5-point Likert scale to assess image quality and resolution. Quantitative assessment in terms of signal intensities (SI) and contrast ratios was performed by region of interest measurements in different body-tissues (vertebral bone, intervertebral disc, spinal cord, cerebrospinal fluid and autochthonous back muscles) to investigate differences between CDLR and ADLR sequences. Results: The images processed with the advanced technique (ADLR) were rated superior to the conventional technique (CDLR) in terms of signal/contrast, resolution, and assessability of the spinal canal and neural foramen. The interrater agreement was moderate for signal/contrast (ICC = 0.68) and good for resolution (ICC = 0.77), but moderate for spinal canal and neuroforaminal assessability (ICC = 0.55). Quantitative assessment showed a higher contrast ratio for fluid-sensitive sequences in the ADLR images. The use of ADLR reduced image acquisition time by 44.4%, from 14:22 min to 07:59 min. Conclusions: Advanced deep learning-based image reconstruction algorithms improve the visually perceived image quality in lumbar spine imaging at 0.55 T while simultaneously allowing to substantially decrease image acquisition times. Clinical relevance: Advanced deep learning-based image post-processing techniques (ADLR) in lumbar spine MRI at 0.55 T significantly improves image quality while reducing image acquisition time.

Indexed as

Computer-AssistedDeep LearningImage ProcessingLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID38711678
PMCPMC11070664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.