ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluating Machine Learning-Based MRI Reconstruction Using Digital Image Quality Phantoms.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative and objective evaluation tools are essential for assessing the performance of machine learning (ML)-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reconstruction methods. However, the commonly used fidelity metrics, such as mean squared error (MSE), structural similarity (SSIM), and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), often fail to capture fundamental and clinically relevant MR image quality aspects. To address this, we propose evaluation of ML-based MRI reconstruction using digital image quality phantoms and automated evaluation methods. Our phantoms are based upon the American College of Radiology (ACR) large physical phantom but created in k-space to simulate their MR images, and they can vary in object size, signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, and image contrast. Our evaluation pipeline incorporates evaluation metrics of geometric accuracy, intensity uniformity, percentage ghosting, sharpness, signal-to-noise ratio, resolution, and low-contrast detectability. We demonstrate the utility of our proposed pipeline by assessing an example ML-based reconstruction model across various training and testing scenarios. The performance results indicate that training data acquired with a lower undersampling factor and coils of larger anatomical coverage yield a better performing model. The comprehensive and standardized pipeline introduced in this study can help to facilitate a better understanding of the performance and guide future development and advancement of ML-based reconstruction algorithms.
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.