ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
A Comparative Study of Consistency on 1.5-T to 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conversion.
Article in Current medical imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesDeep learning methods were employed to perform harmonization analysis on whole-brain scans obtained from 1.5-T and 3.0-T scanners, aiming to increase comparability between different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners.
methodsThirty patients evaluated in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital between August 2020 and March 2023 were included in this retrospective study. Three MRI scanners were used to scan patients, and automated brain image segmentation was performed to obtain volumes of different brain regions. Differences in regional volumes across scanners were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. For regions showing significant differences, super-resolution deep learning was applied to enhance consistency, with subsequent comparison of results. For regions still exhibiting differences, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated and the consistency was evaluated using Cicchetti's criteria.
resultsAverage whole-brain volumes for different scanners among patients were 1152.36mm
conclusionThis study employed a novel machine learning approach that significantly improved the comparability of imaging results from patients using different magnetic field strengths and various models of MRI scanners. Furthermore, it enhanced the consistency of central nervous system image segmentation.
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.