ArticleRadiological physics and technology2024
Verification of image quality improvement by deep learning reconstruction to 1.5 T MRI in T2-weighted images of the prostate gland.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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.
- Comparison of supine and prone positions for dental MRI with a microscopy coil: image quality and patient burden in healthy volunteers.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Development of a Dedicated Prostate Phantom for Technical Evaluation of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging Sequences.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Article
- Prostate MRI Using Deep Learning Reconstruction in Response to Cancer Screening Demands-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Investigation of imaging conditions for dental MRI using 3T-MRI system with microscopy coil in clinical situation.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate whether the image quality of 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is equal to or higher than that of 3 T MRI by applying deep learning reconstruction (DLR). To objectively analyze the images from the 13 healthy volunteers, we measured the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the images obtained by the 1.5 T scanner with and without DLR, as well as for images obtained by the 3 T scanner. In the subjective, T2W images of the prostate were visually evaluated by two board-certified radiologists. The SNRs and CNRs in 1.5 T images with DLR were higher than that in 3 T images. Subjective image scores were better for 1.5 T images with DLR than 3 T images. The use of the DLR technique in 1.5 T MRI substantially improved the SNR and image quality of T2W images of the prostate gland, as compared to 3 T MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38850389What 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.