ArticlePloS one2025
Deep learning reconstruction of free-breathing, diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: A comparison with conventional free-breathing acquisition.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- 3D and 4D Free-Breathing Abdominal T1-Weighted MRI in Clinical Practice Using Deep Learning Auto-Navigation and Reconstruction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of deep learning-based MRI reconstruction on image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in patients with intracranial tumors: a prospective intra-individual study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare image quality and solid focal liver lesion (FLL) assessments between free-breathing, diffusion-weighted imaging using deep learning reconstruction (FB-DL-DWI) and conventional DWI (FB-C-DWI) in patients undergoing clinically indicated liver MRIs. Our retrospective study included 199 patients who underwent 3 T-liver MRIs with FB-DL-DWI and FB-C-DWI. DWI was performed using a single-shot, spin-echo, echo-planar, fat suppression technique during free-breathing with matching parameters. Three radiologists independently evaluated subjective image quality across two sequences. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured in 15 liver regions. Four radiologists analyzed 138 solid FLLs from 60 patients for the presence of diffusion restriction, lesion conspicuity, and sharpness. Among the 199 patients, 110 (55.3%) had underlying chronic liver disease (CLD). FB-DL-DWI was found to be 43.0% faster than FB-C-DWI (119.4 ± 2.2 sec vs. 209.6 ± 3.7 sec). Furthermore, FB-DL-DWI scored higher than FB-C-DWI for all subjective image quality parameters (all, P < 0.001); however, FB-DL-DWI exhibited greater artificial sensation than FB-C-DWI (P < 0.001). In patients with CLD, FB-DL-DWI exhibited a better subjective image quality (all, P < 0.001) than FB-C-DWI. ADC values ranged from 1.06-1.12 × 10-3 mm2/sec in FB-DL-DWI and 1.06-1.20 × 10-3 mm2/sec in FB-C-DWI. Among the 138 lesions analyzed, 116 malignancies (61 hepatocellular carcinomas, 3 cholangiocarcinomas, 52 metastases) and 22 benignities were included. Four readers identified 88, 93, 93, and 105 diffusion-restricted FLLs in FB-DL-DWI and 84, 80, 98, and 95 in FB-C-DWI. FB-DL-DWI (75.9-90.5%) demonstrated comparable or superior diffusion restriction rates for malignant FLLs compared to FB-C-DWI (68.1-82.8%). Furthermore, FB-DL-DWI presented higher lesion-edge sharpness and lesion-conspicuity compared to FB-C-DWI. Overall, FB-DL-DWI provided better image quality, lesion sharpness, and conspicuity for solid FLLs, with a shorter acquisition time than FB-C-DWI. Therefore, FB-DL-DWI may replace FB-C-DWI as the preferred imaging method for liver evaluations.
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.