ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Neuroimaging Reader Study on Clinical Sensitivity and Specificity Using Synthetic MRI Based on MR Quantification.
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. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePrior large prospective studies have shown 2D synthetic MR image quality to be similar to that of conventional MR imaging across a wide variety of normal and abnormal subjects. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of 3D synthetic to conventional MR imaging performed in routine clinical settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, multicenter, multireader clinical investigation to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 3D synthetic images based on the novel synthetic MRI 3D-QALAS method compared with conventional 3D MRI was performed. Five blinded neuroradiologists evaluated the 3D synthetic and conventional MR images of 189 subjects who presented at clinical sites for neuroimaging. The objectives were to compare sensitivity and specificity of pathologic findings, accuracy of imaging findings, image quality, legibility of anatomic structures, artifact prevalence, and interrater and intermethod agreement of synthetic 3D MR images with conventional 3D images.
resultsBoth sensitivity and specificity of 3D synthetic and conventional images for pathologic findings and diagnostic accuracy of radiologic findings were very similar, 66/68% and 85/85%, respectively. The individual values for the readers varied between 58%-73%/58%-75% for sensitivity and 72%-98%/77%-94% for specificity. No significant difference could be determined between the methods. Ratings (1-5 scale) of synthetic MR image quality were higher than for T1-weighted images (mean score of 4.6 ± 0.6, with 98.6% having a 3 or higher versus 4.5 ± 0.7, with 97.8% having a 3 or higher) and T2-weighted images (4.4 ± 0.7, with 98.0% having a 3 or higher versus 4.2 ± 0.8, with 97.5% having a 3 or higher).
conclusionsIn this study no significant differences were found in the sensitivity and specificity of pathologic findings and accuracy of imaging findings between 3D synthetic T1-weighted and T2-weighted images and 3D conventional images. In addition, 5 blinded neuroradiologists rated 3D synthetic MR images of higher image quality than conventional 3D 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.