ArticleScientific reports2024
Deep learning reconstruction of diffusion-weighted brain MRI for evaluation of patients with acute neurologic symptoms.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Impact of deep learning-based MRI reconstruction on image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in patients with intracranial tumors: a prospective intra-individual study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Offline Reconstruction of Diffusion MRI Acquisitions for Comparison Between Complex PCA-Based and AI-Based Denoising.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Deep Learning Reconstruction of Diffusion-weighted MRI Enables Shorter Examination Times While Maintaining Image Quality in Head and Neck Imaging.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Optimizing bladder magnetic resonance imaging: accelerating scan time and improving image quality through deep learning.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to evaluate whether the deep-learning (DL) accelerated diffusion weighted image (DWI) is clinically feasible for evaluating patients with acute neurologic symptoms, regarding its shorter study time and acceptable image quality. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, brain images obtained at DWI with a b-value of 0 s/mm2 and DWI with a b-value of 1000 s/mm2 (DWI 1000) from 321 consecutive patients with acute stroke-like symptom were reconstructed with and without DL algorithm. We compare the diagnostic performance between DL-DWI and conventional DWI for detecting brain lesions, including acute infarction. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of conventional DWI and DL-DWI and compared the results. Qualitative analysis based on image quality was assessed and compared using a five-point visual scoring system. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) from DWI with and without DL were also compared.
resultsThe mean acquisition time for the DL-DWI (49 s) was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) than conventional DWI (165 s). Both DWI with and without DL showed similar performance in diagnosing brain lesions especially sensitivity (98.8% in both DWI and DL-DWI) and specificity (99.5% in both DWI and DL-DWI). Overall image quality, gray-white matter and deep gray matter differentiation of two sequences were similar. DL DWI showed more artifacts than DWI. Lesion conspicuity, especially smaller than 5 mm, was better with DL DWI than conventional DWI (p = 0.03). ADC values of white matter, deep gray matter, and pons with DL were lower than conventional DWI.
conclusionsCompared to conventional DWI, DL-DWI achieved comparable image quality and brain lesion visualization for acute neurological symptoms, with a significantly shorter scan time.
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.