ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Achieving free-breathing liver magnetic resonance imaging by combining compressed sensing with the number of excitations.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTraditional MRI often requires breath-holding, which is challenging for some patients. This study investigates the Liver Acceleration Volume Acquisition-Flexible (LAVA-Flex) sequence using Cartesian sampling. We aim to assess how various combinations of compressed sensing (CS) and number of excitations (NEX) parameters affect image quality and scanning time for liver MRI under free-breathing conditions. Our goal is to identify the optimal parameter combination and offer a liver imaging protocol that is easily applicable for patients who cannot hold their breath.
methodIn this preliminary study, six CS-NEX parameter combinations were tested on healthy volunteers using a 3.0 T MRI: Group A (CS1.2/NEX2), Group B (CS2/NEX5), Group C (CS2/NEX6), Group D (CS2/NEX7), Group E (CS2.5/NEX5), and Group F (CS2.5/NEX6). Objective evaluation indicators included the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subjective assessment employed a 5-point scoring system to evaluate liver margin sharpness, vascular clarity, respiratory motion artifacts, and overall diagnostic value. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the weighted kappa test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultWe included a total of 30 volunteers in the study. The scanning times varied significantly across the six groups. Objective assessment indicated that the SNR increased progressively with the optimization of the CS-NEX combination, whereas the CNR did not differ significantly between groups. Subjectively, Group A scored the lowest for image quality, while Groups D to F scored the highest. Group E, with the shortest scanning time, achieved the best balance of image quality and efficiency.
conclusionThe combined effect of CS and NEX successfully addressed the challenge of liver imaging during free breathing using traditional MRI equipment. The optimal parameter combination, Group E, achieved the best balance between image quality and time efficiency in 98 s, offering a viable solution for breath-hold-impaired patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41721868What 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.