ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Incorporating Radiologist Knowledge Into MRI Quality Metrics for Machine Learning Using Rank-Based Ratings.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. 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.
- MRI acquisition and reconstruction cookbook: recipes for reproducibility, served with real-world flavour.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Deep learning-based uncertainty quantification for quality assurance in hepatobiliary imaging-based techniques.Oncotarget · 2025Article
- Scalable quality control on processing of large diffusion-weighted and structural magnetic resonance imaging datasets.PloS one · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning (DL) often requires an image quality metric; however, widely used metrics are not designed for medical images. PURPOSE: To develop an image quality metric that is specific to MRI using radiologists image rankings and DL models. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 19,344 rankings on 2916 unique image pairs from the NYU fastMRI Initiative neuro database was used for the neural network-based image quality metrics training with an 80%/20% training/validation split and fivefold cross-validation. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T and 3 T T1, T1 postcontrast, T2, and FLuid Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR). ASSESSMENT: Synthetically corrupted image pairs were ranked by radiologists (N = 7), with a subset also scoring images using a Likert scale (N = 2). DL models were trained to match rankings using two architectures (EfficientNet and IQ-Net) with and without reference image subtraction and compared to ranking based on mean squared error (MSE) and structural similarity (SSIM). Image quality assessing DL models were evaluated as alternatives to MSE and SSIM as optimization targets for DL denoising and reconstruction. STATISTICAL TESTS: Radiologists' agreement was assessed by a percentage metric and quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa. Ranking accuracies were compared using repeated measurements analysis of variance. Reconstruction models trained with IQ-Net score, MSE and SSIM were compared by paired t test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsCompared to direct Likert scoring, ranking produced a higher level of agreement between radiologists (70.4% vs. 25%). Image ranking was subjective with a high level of intraobserver agreement ( DATA
conclusionImage quality networks can be trained from image ranking and used to optimize DL tasks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.