ArticleJournal of imaging2024
Image Quality Assessment Tool for Conventional and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Acquisitions.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explainable Radiomics-Based Model for Automatic Image Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer DCE MRI Data.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- A fully automated, expert-perceptive image quality assessment system for whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT.EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Medical Image Quality Assessment.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
- Self-supervised identification and elimination of harmful datasets in distributed machine learning for medical image analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- 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
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
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.