ArticleArXiv2025
Agreement of Image Quality Metrics with Radiological Evaluation in the Presence of Motion Artifacts.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Object: Reliable image quality assessment is crucial for evaluating new motion correction methods for magnetic resonance imaging. We compare the performance of common reference-based and reference-free image quality metrics on unique datasets with real motion artifacts, and analyze the metrics' robustness to typical pre-processing techniques. Materials and Methods: We compared five reference-based and five reference-free metrics on brain data acquired with and without intentional motion (2D and 3D sequences). The metrics were recalculated seven times with varying pre-processing steps. Spearman correlation coefficients were computed to assess the relationship between image quality metrics and radiological evaluation. Results: All reference-based metrics showed strong correlation with observer assessments. Among reference-free metrics, Average Edge Strength offers the most promising results, as it consistently displayed stronger correlations across all sequences compared to the other reference-free metrics. The strongest correlation was achieved with percentile normalization and restricting the metric values to the skull-stripped brain region. In contrast, correlations were weaker when not applying any brain mask and using min-max or no normalization. Discussion: Reference-based metrics reliably correlate with radiological evaluation across different sequences and datasets. Pre-processing significantly influences correlation values. Future research should focus on refining pre-processing techniques and exploring approaches for automated image quality evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39764402PMC11703327What 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.