Comparison of observed image quality and technical image quality parameters in 3D-FLAIR images.

Juha I Peltonen, Teemu Mäkelä, Linda Kuusela, Eero Salli, Marko Kangasniemi

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Juha I PeltonenHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. juha.peltonen@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3731-3265

Teemu MäkeläHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Linda KuuselaHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Eero SalliHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Marko KangasniemiHUS Diagnostic Center, Department of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, P.O. Box 340, FI-00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a complex medical imaging method where multiple technical and physiological factors may lead to undesired changes in image quality. The quality control methods utilizing test objects are useful in measuring technical performance, but they may not fully detect all factors present in clinical imaging. In this study, we developed methodologies to quantify observer-based image quality and to compare these observations with technical quality control (QC) parameters. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analysed 150 brain MRI 3D-FLAIR volumes from 15 scanners, measuring image quality both quantitatively and by visually ranking the images using forced-choice comparison.

resultsSignificant differences were found between different scanners based on the forced choice comparison. In imaging study-specific analysis, a weak correlation was observed with contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) (R DISCUSSION: The forced choice comparison can be effectively utilized to rank image quality across multiple MRI scanners. Technical image quality parameters, directly analysed from anatomical image volumes, can offer prospective maintenance value. Additionally, the quality of clinical image volumes can be assessed using both forced choice comparison and calculational image analysis methods.

Indexed as

BrainImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAlgorithmsFemaleGray MatterHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleQuality ControlReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise RatioWhite MatterComputer-assisted image analysisMagnetic resonance imagingQuality assuranceQuality control

Identifiers

PMID40900265

DOI10.1007/s10334-025-01292-w

PMCPMC12901130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.