ArticleScientific reports2025
Accelerating veterinary low field MRI acquisitions using the deep learning based denoising solution HawkAI.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has changed veterinary diagnosis but its long-sequence time can be problematic, especially because animals need to be sedated during the exam. Unfortunately, shorter scan times implies a fall in overall image quality and diagnosis reliability. Therefore, we developed a Generative Adversarial Net-based denoising algorithm called HawkAI. In this study, a Standard-Of-Care (SOC) MRI-sequence and then a faster sequence were acquired and HawkAI was applied to the latter. Radiologists were then asked to qualitatively evaluate the two proposed images based on different factors using a Likert scale (from 1 being strong preference for HawkAI to 5 being strong preference for SOC). The aim was to prove that they had at least no preference between the two sequences in terms of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and diagnosis. They slightly preferred HawkAI in terms of SNR (confidence interval (CI) being [1.924-2.176]), had no preference in terms of Artifacts Presence, Diagnosis Pertinence and Lesion Conspicuity (respective CIs of [2.933-3.113], [2.808-3.132] and [2.941-3.119]), and a very slight preference for SOC in terms of Spatial Resolution and Image Contrast (respective CIs of [3.153-3.453] and [3.072-3.348]). This shows the possibility to acquire images twice as fast without any major drawback compared to a longer acquisition.
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.