ArticleInsights into imaging2025
3D gadolinium-enhanced high-resolution near-isotropic pancreatic imaging at 3.0-T MR using deep-learning reconstruction.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial for the special issue "Pancreatic imaging: Recent advancements and new frontiers".European journal of radiology open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare overall image quality, lesion conspicuity and detectability on 3D-T1w-GRE arterial phase high-resolution MR images with deep learning reconstruction (3D-DLR) against standard-of-care reconstruction (SOC-Recon) in patients with suspected pancreatic disease. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who underwent a pancreatic MR exam with a high-resolution 3D-T1w-GRE arterial phase acquisition on a 3.0-T MR system between December 2021 and June 2022 in our center were retrospectively included. A new deep learning-based reconstruction algorithm (3D-DLR) was used to additionally reconstruct arterial phase images. Two radiologists blinded to the reconstruction type assessed images for image quality, artifacts and lesion conspicuity using a Likert scale and counted the lesions. Signal-to-noise ratio and lesion contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated for each reconstruction. Quantitative data were evaluated using paired t-tests. Ordinal data such as image quality, artifacts and lesions conspicuity were analyzed using paired-Wilcoxon tests. Interobserver agreement for image quality and artifact assessment was evaluated using Cohen's kappa.
resultsThirty-two patients (mean age 62 years ± 12, 16 female) were included. 3D-DLR significantly improved SNR for each pancreatic segment and lesion CNR compared to SOC-Recon (p < 0.01), and demonstrated significantly higher average image quality score (3.34 vs 2.68, p < 0.01). 3D DLR also significantly reduced artifacts compared to SOC-Recon (p < 0.01) for one radiologist. 3D-DLR exhibited significantly higher average lesion conspicuity (2.30 vs 1.85, p < 0.01). The sensitivity was increased with 3D-DLR compared to SOC-Recon for both reader 1 and reader 2 (1 vs 0.88 and 0.88 vs 0.83, p = 0.62 for both results).
conclusion3D-DLR images demonstrated higher overall image quality, leading to better lesion conspicuity. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 3D deep learning reconstruction can be applied to gadolinium-enhanced pancreatic 3D-T1w arterial phase high-resolution images without additional acquisition time to further improve image quality and lesion conspicuity. KEY POINTS: 3D DLR has not yet been applied to pancreatic MRI high-resolution sequences. This method improves SNR, CNR, and overall 3D T1w arterial pancreatic image quality. Enhanced lesion conspicuity may improve pancreatic lesion detectability.
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.