ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Deep learning-based reconstruction for three-dimensional volumetric brain MRI: a qualitative and quantitative assessment.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Deep learning reconstruction enhances 1.5T MR angiography beyond 3T in vascular visualization for Moyamoya disease.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Deep-learning reconstruction enables about one minute 3D T1-weighted MRI: quantitative evaluation of Acceleration-quality Trade-offs and motion reduction.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
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
backgroundTo evaluate the performance of a deep learning reconstruction (DLR) based on Adaptive-Compressed sensing (CS)-Network for brain MRI and validate it in a clinical setting.
methodsTen healthy volunteers and 22 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled. Volunteers underwent 3D brain MRI including T1 without CS factor (9:16 min, reference standard); with CS factor of 2 without DLR (CS2, 4:6 min); with CS factor of 2 with DLR (DLR-CS2); with CS factor of 4 without DLR (CS4, 2:6 min); and with CS factor of 4 with DLR (DLR-CS4). The patients' MRI included the CS2 and DLR-CS4. The volumes of lateral ventricles, hippocampus, choroid plexus, and white matter hypointensity were calculated and compared among the sequences. Three radiologists independently assessed anatomical conspicuity, overall image quality, artifacts, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and sharpness using a 5-point scale for each sequence.
resultsApplying acceleration factors of 2 and 4 reduced the scan time to 65.4% and 33.5%, respectively, of that of the reference standard. Volumes of all the measured subregions showed no significant differences among different sequences in all participants. In qualitative analysis, the interrater agreement was excellent (κ = 0.844-0.926). In volunteers, quality of DLR-CS4 were comparable to those of CS2 for all metrics except for the overall image quality and SNR despite a 51.2% scan time reduction. In patients, DLR-CS4 showed quality comparable to that of CS2 for all metrics.
conclusionsDLR allowed the scan time reduction by at least half without sacrificing image quality and volumetric quantification accuracy, supporting its reliability and efficiency.
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.