ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Quantifying physiological variability and improving reproducibility in 4D-flow MRI cerebrovascular measurements with self-supervised deep learning.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 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.
- Jointly Learned 3D Non-Cartesian Sampling With Wave Encoding and Reconstruction for Neurovascular Phase Contrast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Quantifying physiological variability and improving reproducibility in 4D-flow MRI cerebrovascular measurements with self-supervised deep learning.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the efficacy of self-supervised deep learning (DL) denoising in reducing measurement variability in 4D-Flow MRI, and to clarify the contributions of physiological variation to cerebrovascular hemodynamics.
methodsA self-supervised DL denoising framework was trained on 3D radially sampled 4D-Flow MRI data. The model was evaluated in a prospective test-retest imaging study in which 10 participants underwent multiple 4D-Flow MRI scans. This included back-to-back scans and a single scan interleaved acquisition designed to isolate noise from physiological variations. The effectiveness of DL denoising was assessed by comparing pixelwise velocity and hemodynamic metrics before and after denoising.
resultsDL denoising significantly enhanced the reproducibility of 4D-Flow MRI measurements, reducing the 95% confidence interval of cardiac-resolved velocity from 215 to 142 mm/s in back-to-back scans and from 158 to 96 mm/s in interleaved scans, after adjusting for physiological variation. In derived parameters, DL denoising did not significantly improve integrated measures, such as flow rates, but did significantly improve noise sensitive measures, such as pulsatility index. Physiologic variation in back-to-back time-resolved scans contributed 26.37% ± 0.08% and 32.42% ± 0.05% of standard error before and after DL.
conclusionSelf-supervised DL denoising enhances the quantitative repeatability of 4D-Flow MRI by reducing technical noise; however, variations from physiology and post-processing are not removed. These findings underscore the importance of accounting for both technical and physiological variability in neurovascular flow imaging, particularly for studies aiming to establish biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases with vascular contributions.
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.