ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning-based simulated contrast-enhanced MRI for rectal cancer evaluation: a multicenter study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility and accuracy of using deep learning to generate simulated contrast-enhanced T1-weighted rectal MRI scans from pre-contrast MRI sequences in rectal cancer patients.
methodsThis study included 514 patients with pathologically confirmed rectal carcinoma who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI at three academic institutions. A two-dimensional generator adversarial network was used to simulate contrast-enhanced MRI scans from pre-contrast T1-weighted images. Quantitative assessments of image similarity, error metrics, and Dice coefficient for tumor overlap were performed. Three radiologists, blinded to the contrast method, evaluated image quality, tumor enhancement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) in 104 paired real and simulated scans. Tumor size correlation was analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and modified Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement. ROC curves evaluated diagnostic performance of EMVI detection, and quality scores were compared using the McNemar test.
resultsSimulated scans demonstrated high similarity to real scans (structural similarity index: 0.82, Dice coefficient: 0.86 ± 0.14 for tumor overlap). Tumor size measurements correlated strongly (ICC: 0.76-0.88), with minimal differences in length (0.11 mm) and depth (0.10 mm). ROC analysis revealed slightly higher AUC values for real scans (0.702, 0.772, 0.713) compared to simulated scans (0.685, 0.694, 0.661) for three radiologists, respectively. Nearly all synthetic scans (98%) were rated diagnostically suitable.
conclusionDeep learning-generated simulated contrast-enhanced MRI scans demonstrated comparability to real scans in terms of tumor size, enhancement area, and image quality, suggesting their potential as a supportive tool for diagnosis and treatment evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417085What 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.