Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38786569›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging2024

Image Quality Assessment Tool for Conventional and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Acquisitions.

Katerina Nikiforaki, Ioannis Karatzanis, Aikaterini Dovrou, Maciej Bobowicz, Katarzyna Gwozdziewicz, Oliver Díaz, Manolis Tsiknakis, Dimitrios I Fotiadis, Karim Lekadir, Kostas Marias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Katerina NikiforakiComputational BioMedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 70013 Heraklion, Greece.
Ioannis KaratzanisComputational BioMedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 70013 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-3909-7503
Aikaterini DovrouComputational BioMedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 70013 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-5242-6060
Maciej Bobowicz2nd Department of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-214 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3608-1960
Katarzyna Gwozdziewicz2nd Department of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-214 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4155-7203
Oliver DíazDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6789-5177
Manolis TsiknakisComputational BioMedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 70013 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8454-1450
Dimitrios I FotiadisBiomedical Research Institute, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 45500 Ioannina, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-7362-5082
Karim LekadirDepartament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
Kostas MariasComputational BioMedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas (FORTH), 70013 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-3783-5223

Funding

European Union 101057699
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Image quality assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data is an important factor not only for conventional diagnosis and protocol optimization but also for fairness, trustworthiness, and robustness of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, especially on large heterogeneous datasets. Information on image quality in multi-centric studies is important to complement the contribution profile from each data node along with quantity information, especially when large variability is expected, and certain acceptance criteria apply. The main goal of this work was to present a tool enabling users to assess image quality based on both subjective criteria as well as objective image quality metrics used to support the decision on image quality based on evidence. The evaluation can be performed on both conventional and dynamic MRI acquisition protocols, while the latter is also checked longitudinally across dynamic series. The assessment provides an overall image quality score and information on the types of artifacts and degrading factors as well as a number of objective metrics for automated evaluation across series (BRISQUE score, Total Variation, PSNR, SSIM, FSIM, MS-SSIM). Moreover, the user can define specific regions of interest (ROIs) to calculate the regional signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), thus individualizing the quality output to specific use cases, such as tissue-specific contrast or regional noise quantification.

Indexed as

artifactsbreast MRIcontrastcontrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)full-referenceimage qualitymagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)noiseno-referencesignal-to-noise ratio (SNR)tool

Identifiers

PMID38786569
PMCPMC11122086

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.