ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Accelerating breast MRI acquisition with generative AI models.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Artificial Intelligence in Predicting Prostate Cancer Biochemical Recurrence: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of Generative AI-Enhanced Low-Dose Cone-Beam Computed Tomography on Diagnosis and Treatment Planning for Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for breast cancer prevention: the vision ahead.European radiology · 2026Review
- Optimizing the early diagnosis of neurological disorders through the application of machine learning for predictive analytics in medical imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Diffusion models for medical image reconstruction.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the use of the score-based diffusion model to accelerate breast MRI reconstruction. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe trained a score-based model on 9549 MRI examinations of the female breast and employed it to reconstruct undersampled MRI images with undersampling factors of 2, 5, and 20. Images were evaluated by two experienced radiologists who rated the images based on their overall quality and diagnostic value on an independent test set of 100 additional MRI examinations.
resultsThe score-based model produces MRI images of high quality and diagnostic value. Both T1- and T2-weighted MRI images could be reconstructed to a high degree of accuracy. Two radiologists rated the images as almost indistinguishable from the original images (rating 4 or 5 on a scale of 5) in 100% (radiologist 1) and 99% (radiologist 2) of cases when the acceleration factor was 2. This fraction dropped to 88% and 70% for an acceleration factor of 5 and to 5% and 21% with an extreme acceleration factor of 20.
conclusionScore-based models can reconstruct MRI images at high fidelity, even at comparatively high acceleration factors, but further work on a larger scale of images is needed to ensure that diagnostic quality holds. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The number of MRI examinations of the breast is expected to rise with MRI screening recommended for women with dense breasts. Accelerated image acquisition methods can help in making this examination more accessible. KEY POINTS: Accelerating breast MRI reconstruction remains a significant challenge in clinical settings. Score-based diffusion models can achieve near-perfect reconstruction for moderate undersampling factors. Faster breast MRI scans with maintained image quality could revolutionize clinic workflows and patient experience.
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.