ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025
Comparative evaluation of four reconstruction techniques for prostate T2-weighted MRI: Sensitivity encoding, compressed sensing, deep learning, and super-resolution.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the image quality and lesion conspicuity of prostate T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) using four reconstruction methods: conventional Sensitivity Encoding (SENSE), compressed sensing (CS), model-based deep learning reconstruction (DL), and deep learning super-resolution reconstruction (SR). Methods: This retrospective study included 49 patients who underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) or biparametric MRI (bpMRI) for suspected prostate cancer. Axial T2WI was acquired using two protocols: conventional SENSE and CS-based acquisition. From the CS-based data, three reconstruction methods (CS, DL, and SR) were applied to generate additional images. Two board-certified radiologists independently assessed overall image quality and sharpness using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 4 = excellent). Quantitative analysis included signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and sharpness index. PI-RADS T2WI scoring and lesion conspicuity were preliminarily evaluated in 18 individuals with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer. Statistical comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: SR consistently achieved the highest scores in both qualitative (overall image quality, image sharpness) and quantitative (SNR, CNR, sharpness index) assessments, compared with SENSE, CS, and DL (all pairwise comparisons, Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.0001). In lesion-based analysis, SR showed a trend toward improved lesion conspicuity, although PI-RADS T2WI scores were similar across reconstruction. Conclusion: SR reconstruction demonstrated superior image quality in both qualitative and quantitative assessments and showed potential benefits for lesion visualization. These findings, although based on a small sample, suggest that SR may be a promising approach for prostate MRI and warrants further investigation in larger populations.
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.