ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Quantitative image quality metrics enable resource-efficient quality control of clinically applied AI-based reconstructions in MRI.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 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.
- How deep resolve affects the stability of texture features for different MR image acceleration methods - a phantom and a human brain study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAI-based MRI reconstruction techniques improve efficiency by reducing acquisition times whilst maintaining or improving image quality. Recent recommendations from professional bodies suggest centres should perform quality assessments on AI tools. However, monitoring long-term performance presents challenges, due to model drift or system updates. Radiologist-based assessments are resource-intensive and may be subjective, highlighting the need for efficient quality control (QC) measures. This study explores using image quality metrics (IQMs) to assess AI-based reconstructions. MATERIALS AND
methods58 patients undergoing standard-of-care rectal MRI were imaged using AI-based and conventional T2-weighted sequences. Paired and unpaired IQMs were calculated. Sensitivity of IQMs to detect retrospective perturbations in AI-based reconstructions was assessed using control charts, and statistical comparisons between the four MR systems in the evaluation were performed. Two radiologists evaluated the image quality of the perturbed images, giving an indication of their clinical relevance.
resultsPaired IQMs demonstrated sensitivity to changes in AI-reconstruction settings, identifying deviations outside ± 2 standard deviations of the reference dataset. Unpaired metrics showed less sensitivity. Paired IQMs showed no difference in performance between 1.5 T and 3 T systems (p > 0.99), whilst minor but significant (p < 0.0379) differences were noted for unpaired IQMs. DISCUSSION: IQMs are effective for QC of AI-based MR reconstructions, offering resource-efficient alternatives to repeated radiologist evaluations. Future work should expand this to other imaging applications and assess additional measures.
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.