ArticleArXiv2025
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of AI-driven MRI Motion Artifact Detection and Correction.
Article in ArXiv, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven methods for detecting and correcting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) motion artifacts, assessing current developments, effectiveness, challenges, and future research directions. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, focusing on deep learning (DL) approaches, particularly generative models, for the detection and correction of MRI motion artifacts. Quantitative data were extracted regarding utilized datasets, DL architectures, and performance metrics. Results: DL, particularly generative models, shows promise for reducing motion artifacts and improving image quality; however, limited generalizability, reliance on paired training data, and risk of visual distortions remain key challenges that motivate standardized datasets and reporting. Conclusions: AI-driven methods, particularly DL generative models, show significant potential for improving MRI image quality by effectively addressing motion artifacts. However, critical challenges must be addressed, including the need for comprehensive public datasets, standardized reporting protocols for artifact levels, and more advanced, adaptable DL techniques to reduce reliance on extensive paired datasets. Addressing these aspects could substantially enhance MRI diagnostic accuracy, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient care outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40949764PMC12425023What 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.