ArticleLa Radiologia medica2025
Deep learning-driven abbreviated knee MRI protocols: diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in Musculoskeletal Imaging: An End-to-End Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Combining 3D iterative image reconstruction and deep learning to improve image quality of knee joint MRI fast sequences: a focus on meniscal injury evaluation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of knee injuries after skiing in adolescents under deep learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Establishment and validation of an interpretable machine learning-based predictive model for risk of post-PCI in-hospital heart failure in AIHD patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep learning (DL) reconstruction shows potential in reducing MRI acquisition times while preserving image quality, but the impact of varying acceleration factors on knee MRI diagnostic accuracy remains undefined. PURPOSE: Evaluate diagnostic performance of twofold, fourfold, and sixfold DL-accelerated knee MRI protocols versus standard protocols. MATERIALS/
methodsIn this prospective study, 71 consecutive patients underwent knee MRI with standard, DL2, DL4, and DL6 accelerated protocols. Four radiologists assessed ligament tears, meniscal lesions, bone marrow edema, chondropathy, and extensor abnormalities. Sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver agreement were calculated.
resultsDL2 and DL4 demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy. For ACL tears, DL2/DL4 achieved 98-100% sensitivity/specificity, while DL6 showed reduced sensitivity (91-96%). In meniscal evaluation, DL2 maintained 96-100% sensitivity and 98-100% specificity; DL4 showed 94-98% sensitivity and 97-99% specificity. DL6 exhibited decreased sensitivity (82-92%) for subtle lesions. Bone marrow edema detection remained excellent across acceleration factors. Interobserver agreement was excellent for DL2/DL4 (W = 0.91-0.97) and good for DL6 (W = 0.78-0.89).
conclusionDL2 protocols demonstrate performance nearly identical to standard protocols, while DL4 maintains acceptable diagnostic accuracy for most pathologies. DL6 shows reduced sensitivity for subtle abnormalities, particularly among less experienced readers. DL2 and DL4 protocols represent optimal balance between acquisition time reduction (50-75%) and diagnostic confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40613973What 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.