ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Validation of deep-learning accelerated quantitative susceptibility mapping for deep brain nuclei.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in iron-storage protein-based MRI reporter genes: from molecular mechanisms to translational imaging applications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To test the feasibility and consistency of a deep-learning (DL) accelerated QSM method for deep brain nuclei evaluation. Methods: Participants were scanned with both parallel imaging (PI)-QSM and DL-QSM methods. The PI- and DL-QSM scans had identical imaging parameters other than acceleration factors (AF). The DL-QSM employed Poisson disk style under-sampling scheme and a previously developed cascaded CNN based reconstruction model, with acquisition time of 4:35, 3:15, and 2:11 for AF of 3, 4, and 5, respectively. For PI-QSM acquisition, the AF was 2 and the acquisition time was 6:46. The overall image similarity was assessed between PI- and DL-QSM images using the structural similarity index (SSIM) and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). QSM values from 7 deep brain nuclei were extracted and agreements between images with different Afs were assessed. Finally, the correlations between age and QSM values in the selected deep brain nuclei were evaluated. Results: 59 participants were recruited. Compared to PI-QSM images, the mean SSIM of DL images were 0.87, 0.86, and 0.85 for AF of 3, 4, and 5. The mean PSNR were 44.56, 44.53, and 44.23. Susceptibility values from DL-QSM were highly consistent with routine PI-QSM images, with differences of less than 5% at the group level. Furthermore, the associations between age and QSM values could be consistently revealed. Conclusion: DL-QSM could be used for measuring susceptibility values of deep brain nucleus. An AF up to 5 did not significantly impact the correlation between age and susceptibility in deep brain nuclei.
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.