ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Coil Sketching for Fast and Efficient 4D Lung MRI Reconstruction.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Two-For-One": 4D Cardiac and Pulmonary MR Imaging From a Single Acquisition Using bSTAR.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Retrospective Motion Compensation Techniques for Pulmonary Dynamic Ultrashort Time to Echo MRI in Suspected Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Comparison of Signal- and Volume-Based Ventilation-Weighted Assessment Using 3D FLORET UTE MRI in Patients With Various Pulmonary Disease.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Coil Sketching for Fast and Efficient 4D Lung MRI Reconstruction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and evaluate a memory-efficient and accelerated reconstruction framework for respiratory-resolved 4D lung MRI using coil sketching and Toeplitz approximation, enabling high-quality motion-compensated low-rank (MoCo-LR) reconstructions on clinically accessible GPU hardware. THEORY AND
methodsRespiratory-resolved 4D MRI enables non-invasive assessment of pulmonary structure and function but is limited by computational and memory demands from large matrices and long acquisitions. We extend the coil sketching framework-previously proposed for 3D imaging-to 4D (3D + time), allowing the data consistency term of compressed-sensing objective functions to be solved with reduced GPU memory consumption and reconstruction duration while preserving image accuracy. Additionally, we implement Toeplitz approximation to accelerate repeated applications of the normal encoding operator, further reducing computational demand. Finally, we outline a MoCo-LR regularization technique that uses only forward deformations, improving reconstruction stability over many iterations. Reconstructions were performed across several regularization schemes using a 3D stack-of-spirals acquisition and evaluated for memory footprint, speed, and image accuracy.
resultsThe proposed 4D coil sketching method reduced memory usage by ˜3-fold compared to fully sampled reconstructions and enabled high-resolution MoCo-LR reconstructions in < 10 min on < 48 GB GPUs. Toeplitz approximation further reduced runtime with minimal impact on image quality. Compared to conventional coil compression, coil sketching preserved parenchymal signal and structural fidelity in low-SNR regions.
conclusionCoil sketching and Toeplitz approximation provide a generalizable, hardware-efficient solution for 4D lung MRI reconstruction. These methods reduce computational barriers, improve reconstruction speed, and maintain image quality, offering a path toward broader clinical adoption of respiratory-resolved lung MRI.
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.