ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Virtual contrast-enhanced maximum intensity projections from high-b-value diffusion-weighted breast MRI: a feasibility study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMaximum intensity projections (MIPs) facilitate rapid lesion detection both for contrast-enhanced (CE) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We evaluated the feasibility of AI-based virtual CE subtraction MIPs as a reading approach. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study includes 540 multi-parametric breast MRI examinations (performed from 2017 to 2020), including multi-b-value DWI (50, 750, and 1,500 s/mm²). A 2D U-Net was trained using unenhanced (UnE) images as inputs to generate virtual abbreviated CE (VAbCE) subtractions. Two radiologists evaluated lesion suspicion, image quality, and artifacts for UnE, VACE, and abbreviated CE (AbCE) images. Lesion conspicuity was compared between VAbCE and AbCE MIPs.
resultsCancer detection rates for UE, VAbCE, and AbCE MIPs were 90.0%, 91.4%, and 94.3%, respectively. Single-slice reading demonstrated sensitivities of 88.6% (UnE), 91.4% (VAbCE), and 94.3% (AbCE). Inter-rater agreement (Cohen κ) for lesion suspicion scores was higher for VAbCE (0.53) than UnE alone (0.39) and comparable to AbCE (0.58). No significant difference in mean lesion conspicuity was observed for VACE MIPs compared to ACE (p ≥ 0.670). No significant difference could be observed for quality (p ≥ 0.108), and reading time (p = 1.000) between methods. Fewer visually significant artifacts could be observed in VAbCE than in AbCE MIPs (p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionVAbCE breast MRI improved inter-rater agreement and allowed for slightly improved sensitivity compared to UnE images, while AbCE still provided the overall highest sensitivity. Further research is necessary to investigate the diagnostic potential of VAbCE breast MRI. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: VAbCE breast MRI generated by neural networks allowed the derivation of MIPs for rapid visual assessment, showing a way for screening applications. KEY POINTS: Virtual abbreviated contrast-enhanced (VAbCE) MIPs provided comparable sensitivity to MIPs of unenhanced high b-value DWI and were slightly lower than AbCE MIPs. Adding VAbCE to unenhanced high b-value DWI significantly improved interrater agreement for lesion suspicion scoring. Single-slice evaluation of VAbCE MIPs provided a sensitivity comparable to unenhanced high b-value DWI MIPs.
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.