ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Real-Time Deep-Learning Image Reconstruction and Instrument Tracking in MR-Guided Biopsies.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. 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.
- Real-Time Deep-Learning Image Reconstruction and Instrument Tracking in MR-Guided Biopsies.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
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
backgroundTransrectal in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) is accurate but time-consuming, limiting clinical throughput. Faster imaging could improve workflow and enable real-time instrument tracking. Existing acceleration methods often use simulated data and lack validation in clinical settings. PURPOSE: To accelerate MRGB by using deep learning for undersampled image reconstruction and instrument tracking, trained on multi-slice MR DICOM images and evaluated on raw k-space acquisitions. STUDY TYPE: Prospective feasibility study. POPULATION: Briefly, 1289 male patients (aged 44-87, median age 68) for model training, 8 male patients (aged 59-78, median age 65) for prospective feasibility testing. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 2D Cartesian balanced steady-state free precession, 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Segmentation and reconstruction models were trained on 8464 MRGB confirmation scans containing a biopsy needle guide instrument and evaluated on 10 prospectively acquired dynamic k-space samples. Needle guide tracking accuracy was assessed using instrument tip prediction (ITP) error, computed per frame as the Euclidean distance from reference positions defined via pre- and post-movement scans. Feasibility was measured by the proportion of frames with < 5 mm error. Additional experiments tested model robustness under increasing undersampling rates. STATISTICAL TESTS: In a segmentation validation experiment, a one-sample t-test tested if the mean ITP error was below 5 mm. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. In the tracking experiments, the mean, standard deviation, and Wilson 95% CI of the ITP success rate were computed per sample, across undersampling levels.
resultsITP was first evaluated independently on 201 fully sampled scans, yielding an ITP error of 1.55 ± 1.01 mm (95% CI: 1.41-1.69). Tracking performance was assessed across increasing undersampling factors, achieving high ITP success rates from 97.5% ± 5.8% (68.8%-99.9%) at 8× up to 92.5% ± 10.3% (62.5%-98.9%) at 16× undersampling. Performance declined at 18×, dropping to 74.6% ± 33.6% (43.8%-91.7%). DATA
conclusionResults confirm stable needle guide tip prediction accuracy and support the robustness of the reconstruction model for tracking at high undersampling. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.