ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Assessment of image quality and diagnostic accuracy for cervical spondylosis using T2w-STIR sequence with a deep learning-based reconstruction approach.
Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Recent Advances in Musculoskeletal Radiology: Bridging Innovation and Clinical Application.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Review
- Advancing medical imaging diagnostics using deep learning for accurate spinal disorder classification.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate potential of enhancing image quality, maintaining interobserver consensus, and elevating disease diagnostic efficacy through the implementation of deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) processing in 3.0 T cervical spine fast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, compared with conventional images.
methodsThe 3.0 T cervical spine MRI images of 71 volunteers were categorized into two groups: sagittal T2-weighted short T1 inversion recovery without DLR (Sag T2w-STIR) and with DLR (Sag T2w-STIR-DLR). The assessment covered artifacts, perceptual signal-to-noise ratio, clearness of tissue interfaces, fat suppression, overall image quality, and the delineation of spinal cord, vertebrae, discs, dopamine, and joints. Spanning canal stenosis, neural foraminal stenosis, herniated discs, annular fissures, hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum or vertebral facet joints, and intervertebral disc degeneration were evaluated by three impartial readers.
resultsSag T2w-STIR-DLR images exhibited markedly superior performance across quality indicators (median = 4 or 5) compared to Sag T2w-STIR sequences (median = 3 or 4) (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two sequences in terms of diagnosis and grading (p > 0.05). The interobserver agreement for Sag T2w-STIR-DLR images (0.604-0.931) was higher than the other (0.545-0.853), Sag T2w-STIR-DLR (0.747-1.000) demonstrated increased concordance between reader 1 and reader 3 in comparison to Sag T2w-STIR (0.508-1.000). Acquisition time diminished from 364 to 197 s through the DLR scheme.
conclusionsOur investigation establishes that 3.0 T fast MRI images subjected to DLR processing present heightened image quality, bolstered diagnostic performance, and reduced scanning durations for cervical spine MRI compared with conventional sequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39007984What 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.