ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2024
Efficacy of compressed sensing and deep learning reconstruction for adult female pelvic MRI at 1.5 T.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reverse Encoding Distortion Correction of Female Pelvic Diffusion-weighted Imaging on a 1.5-T MR System: Influence on Image Quality and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements for Both In Vitro and In Vivo Studies.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Article
- Recent trends in scientific research in chest radiology: What to do or not to do? That is the critical question in research.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to determine the capabilities of compressed sensing (CS) and deep learning reconstruction (DLR) with those of conventional parallel imaging (PI) for improving image quality while reducing examination time on female pelvic 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsFifty-two consecutive female patients with various pelvic diseases underwent MRI with T1- and T2-weighted sequences using CS and PI. All CS data was reconstructed with and without DLR. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of muscle and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) between fat tissue and iliac muscle on T1-weighted images (T1WI) and between myometrium and straight muscle on T2-weighted images (T2WI) were determined through region-of-interest measurements. Overall image quality (OIQ) and diagnostic confidence level (DCL) were evaluated on 5-point scales. SNRs and CNRs were compared using Tukey's test, and qualitative indexes using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsSNRs of T1WI and T2WI obtained using CS with DLR were higher than those using CS without DLR or conventional PI (p < 0.010). CNRs of T1WI and T2WI obtained using CS with DLR were higher than those using CS without DLR or conventional PI (p < 0.003). OIQ of T1WI and T2WI obtained using CS with DLR were higher than that using CS without DLR or conventional PI (p < 0.001). DCL of T2WI obtained using CS with DLR was higher than that using conventional PI or CS without DLR (p < 0.001).
conclusionCS with DLR provided better image quality and shorter examination time than those obtainable with PI for female pelvic 1.5-T MRI. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: CS with DLR can be considered effective for attaining better image quality and shorter examination time for female pelvic MRI at 1.5 T compared with those obtainable with PI. KEY POINTS: Patients underwent MRI with T1- and T2-weighted sequences using CS and PI. All CS data was reconstructed with and without DLR. CS with DLR allowed for examination times significantly shorter than those of PI and provided significantly higher signal- and CNRs, as well as OIQ.
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.