Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39698686›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

Deep learning-based reconstruction: a reliability assessment in preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for primary rectal cancer.

Weiming Feng, Lan Zhu, Yihan Xia, Jingwen Tan, Jiankun Dai, Haipeng Dong, Bei Ding, Huan Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Weiming FengDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Lan ZhuDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yihan XiaDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jingwen TanDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jiankun DaiMRI Research, GE Healthcare, Beijing, China.
Haipeng DongDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Bei DingDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Huan ZhangDepartment of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Deep learning has developed rapidly, and deep learning reconstruction (DLR) methods in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are gaining attention for their potential to improve efficacy in clinical work. The preoperative MRI assessment of rectal cancer is crucial for patient management, but the imaging quality is currently limited by a number of factors. DLR could be applied to the preoperative MRI assessment of primary rectal cancer, but research about its specific reliability is limited. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability of DLR in the preoperative MRI examination of primary rectal cancer. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine from March 2022 to October 2022. Patients with primary rectal cancer underwent routine MRI scans on a 3.0T magnetic resonance scanner (SIGNA Architect, GE Healthcare, USA) with 32-channels flexible coil with conventional reconstruction (ConR) and DLR. The DLR method had three noise reduction levels: DLR-H: 75% noise reduction reconstruction; DLR-M: 50% noise reduction reconstruction; and DLR-L: 25% noise reduction reconstruction. Three components were evaluated: objective image quality; subjective image quality; and diagnostic performance. The objective image quality assessment included the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The subjective image quality assessment involved evaluating five subjective image quality parameters based on a 4-point Likert scale. The diagnostic performance assessment included tumour (T) staging, node (N) staging, as well as the circumferential resection margin and extramural vascular invasion evaluation. The images were evaluated in a blinded manner by two radiologists with different levels of experience. The paired sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Kappa test, interclass correlation coefficient, Chi-square test, Friedman test, and weighted kappa coefficients were used for the statistical analysis. Results: In total, 61 patients (mean age: 65±12 years; 38 men) were enrolled in the study. The DLR method improved the SNR and CNR values of the images relative to the ConR method, while the DLR-H produced the greatest improvement (P<0.040). The subjective image quality of the DLR-H images was superior to that of the ConR images (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between the DLR-H and DLR-M images (P≥0.075). The evaluators showed good agreement in subjective scoring, and in the DLR image scoring, the evaluators have the best consistency in the DLR-H images scoring (kappa =0.921, P<0.001). The diagnostic efficacy of the DLR images was comparable to that of the ConR images in terms of T staging [Reader 1 (R1): P=0.603; Reader 2 (R2): P=0.206] and N staging (R1: P=0.990; R2: P=0.884). Conclusions: The DLR method improved the quality of the images, and had comparable diagnostic efficacy without additional scanning time to that of the ConR method, and thus could be a feasible option for replacing the ConR method in the preoperative MRI examination of primary rectal cancer.

Indexed as

deep learning (DL)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Rectum cancer

Identifiers

PMID39698686
PMCPMC11651964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.