ArticleArXiv2026
Pixelwise Uncertainty Quantification of Accelerated MRI Reconstruction.
Article in ArXiv, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Parallel imaging techniques reduce magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan time but image quality degrades as the acceleration factor increases. In clinical practice, conservative acceleration factors are chosen because no mechanism exists to automatically assess the diagnostic quality of undersampled reconstructions. This work introduces a general framework for pixel-wise uncertainty quantification in parallel MRI reconstructions, enabling automatic identification of unreliable regions without access to any ground-truth reference image. Our method integrates conformal quantile regression with image reconstruction methods to estimate statistically rigorous pixelwise uncertainty intervals. We trained and evaluated our model on Cartesian undersampled brain and knee data obtained from the fastMRI dataset using acceleration factors ranging from 2 to 10. An end-to-end Variational Network was used for image reconstruction. Quantitative experiments demonstrate strong agreement between predicted uncertainty maps and true reconstruction error. Using our method, the corresponding Pearson correlation coefficient was higher than 90% at acceleration levels at and above four-fold; whereas it dropped to less than 70% when the uncertainty was computed using a simpler a heuristic notion (magnitude of the residual). Qualitative examples further show the uncertainty maps based on quantile regression capture the magnitude and spatial distribution of reconstruction errors across acceleration factors, with regions of elevated uncertainty aligning with pathologies and artifacts. The proposed framework enables evaluation of reconstruction quality without access to fully-sampled ground-truth reference images. It represents a step toward adaptive MRI acquisition protocols that may be able to dynamically balance scan time and diagnostic reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41647209PMC12869417What 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.