ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Using deep feature distances for evaluating the perceptual quality of MR image reconstructions.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation of objective image quality metrics with radiologists' diagnostic confidence depends on the clinical task performed.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025Article
- Deep learning for accelerated and robust MRI reconstruction.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- pcaGAN: Improving Posterior-Sampling cGANs via Principal Component Regularization.Advances in neural information processing systems · 2024Article
- RAVEN: Robust, generalizable, multi-resolution structural MRI upsampling using autoencoders.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCommonly used MR image quality (IQ) metrics have poor concordance with radiologist-perceived diagnostic IQ. Here, we develop and explore deep feature distances (DFDs)-distances computed in a lower-dimensional feature space encoded by a convolutional neural network (CNN)-as improved perceptual IQ metrics for MR image reconstruction. We further explore the impact of distribution shifts between images in the DFD CNN encoder training data and the IQ metric evaluation.
methodsWe compare commonly used IQ metrics (PSNR and SSIM) to two "out-of-domain" DFDs with encoders trained on natural images, an "in-domain" DFD trained on MR images alone, and two domain-adjacent DFDs trained on large medical imaging datasets. We additionally compare these with several state-of-the-art but less commonly reported IQ metrics, visual information fidelity (VIF), noise quality metric (NQM), and the high-frequency error norm (HFEN). IQ metric performance is assessed via correlations with five expert radiologist reader scores of perceived diagnostic IQ of various accelerated MR image reconstructions. We characterize the behavior of these IQ metrics under common distortions expected during image acquisition, including their sensitivity to acquisition noise.
resultsAll DFDs and HFEN correlate more strongly with radiologist-perceived diagnostic IQ than SSIM, PSNR, and other state-of-the-art metrics, with correlations being comparable to radiologist inter-reader variability. Surprisingly, out-of-domain DFDs perform comparably to in-domain and domain-adjacent DFDs.
conclusionA suite of IQ metrics, including DFDs and HFEN, should be used alongside commonly-reported IQ metrics for a more holistic evaluation of MR image reconstruction perceptual quality. We also observe that general vision encoders are capable of assessing visual IQ even for MR images.
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.