Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39768122›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Clean Self-Supervised MRI Reconstruction from Noisy, Sub-Sampled Training Data with Robust SSDU.

Charles Millard, Mark Chiew

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Charles MillardWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3877-563X
Mark ChiewDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6272-8783

Funding

EPSRC EP/T013133/1Royal Academy of Engineering RF201617/16/23Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203139/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust Core Award 203141/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most existing methods for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reconstruction with deep learning use fully supervised training, which assumes that a fully sampled dataset with a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is available for training. In many circumstances, however, such a dataset is highly impractical or even technically infeasible to acquire. Recently, a number of self-supervised methods for MRI reconstruction have been proposed, which use sub-sampled data only. However, the majority of such methods, such as Self-Supervised Learning via Data Undersampling (SSDU), are susceptible to reconstruction errors arising from noise in the measured data. In response, we propose Robust SSDU, which provably recovers clean images from noisy, sub-sampled training data by simultaneously estimating missing k-space samples and denoising the available samples. Robust SSDU trains the reconstruction network to map from a further noisy and sub-sampled version of the data to the original, singly noisy, and sub-sampled data and applies an additive Noisier2Noise correction term upon inference. We also present a related method, Noiser2Full, that recovers clean images when noisy, fully sampled data are available for training. Both proposed methods are applicable to any network architecture, are straightforward to implement, and have a similar computational cost to standard training. We evaluate our methods on the multi-coil fastMRI brain dataset with novel denoising-specific architecture and find that it performs competitively with a benchmark trained on clean, fully sampled data.

Indexed as

deep learningimage reconstructionmagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID39768122
PMCPMC11726718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.