ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Fat-water MRI separation using deep complex convolution network.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDeep complex convolutional networks (DCCNs) utilize complex-valued convolutions and can process complex-valued MRI signals directly without splitting them into two real-valued magnitude and phase components. The performance of DCCN and real-valued U-Net is thoroughly investigated in the physics-informed subject-specific ad-hoc reconstruction method for fat-water separation and is compared against a widely used reference approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive test dataset (n = 33) was used for performance analysis. The 2012 ISMRM fat-water separation workshop dataset containing 28 batches of multi-echo MRIs with 3-15 echoes from the abdomen, thigh, knee, and phantoms, acquired with 1.5 T and 3 T scanners were used. Additionally, five MAFLD patients multi-echo MRIs acquired from our clinical radiology department were also used.
resultsThe quantitative results demonstrated that DCCN produced fat-water maps with better normalized RMS error and structural similarity index with the reference approach, compared to real-valued U-Nets in the ad-hoc reconstruction method for fat-water separation. The DCCN achieved an overall average SSIM of 0.847 ± 0.069 and 0.861 ± 0.078 in generating fat and water maps, respectively, in contrast the U-Net achieved only 0.653 ± 0.166 and 0.729 ± 0.134. The average liver PDFF from DCCN achieved a correlation coefficient R of 0.847 with the reference approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40608268What 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.