ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
3D MR Neurography of Craniocervical Nerves: Comparing Double-Echo Steady-State and Postcontrast STIR with Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction at 1.5T.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of postoperative nerve root oedema and analysis of risk factors in unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy using the DESS sequence: preliminary results.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Fusion of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance neurography and T1-weighted imaging improves simultaneous nerve-tumor visualization in head and neck lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
background and purpose3D MR neurography is a useful diagnostic tool in head and neck disorders, but neurographic imaging remains challenging in this region. Optimal sequences for nerve visualization have not yet been established and may also differ between nerves. While deep learning (DL) reconstruction can enhance nerve depiction, particularly at 1.5T, studies in the head and neck are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare double echo steady-state (DESS) and postcontrast STIR sequences in DL-reconstructed 3D MR neurography of the extraforaminal cranial and spinal nerves at 1.5T. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen consecutive examinations of 18 patients undergoing head-and-neck MRI at 1.5T were retrospectively included (mean age: 51 ± 14 years, 11 women). 3D DESS and postcontrast 3D STIR sequences were obtained as part of the standard protocol, and reconstructed with a prototype DL algorithm. Two blinded readers qualitatively evaluated visualization of the inferior alveolar, lingual, facial, hypoglossal, greater occipital, lesser occipital, and greater auricular nerves, as well as overall image quality, vascular suppression, and artifacts. Additionally, apparent SNR and contrast-to-noise ratios of the inferior alveolar and greater occipital nerve were measured. Visual ratings and quantitative measurements, respectively, were compared between sequences by using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsDESS demonstrated significantly improved visualization of the lesser occipital nerve, greater auricular nerve, and proximal greater occipital nerve (
conclusionsOur findings suggest that 3D DESS generally provides improved visualization of spinal nerves, while postcontrast 3D STIR facilitates enhanced delineation of extraforaminal cranial nerves.
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.