ArticleBMC medical imaging2026
Optimizing high-resolution knee MRI at 3 tesla: conventional acceleration versus deep learning reconstruction.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
backgroundTo compare subjective and objective image quality and resolution between time-optimized standard knee MRI (sMRI) with image quality-optimized DL-enhanced (DL-MRI) at 3 Tesla.
methodsA retrospective single-centre study of 150 knee MRI examinations (75 sMRI, 75 DL-MRI) was conducted. Protocols included Proton density–weighted sequence with fat suppression (PD-FS) (coronal/sagittal/axial), T1 (coronal or sagittal), and T2 (axial) optimized for time in sMRI and for image quality in DL-MRI. Three blinded readers with different levels of experience rated overall image quality, anatomical delineation, fat saturation, motion artefacts, and foreign-body artefacts on 5-point Likert scales. Quantitative analysis was performed to calculate SNR, CNR, and generalised metrics (gSNR, gCNR). Group differences were assessed using two-sided Welch’s t-tests.
resultsReaders rated DL higher in nearly all categories and sequences, with mean gains of ~ 0.48–0.70 for overall image quality and ~ 0.38–0.54 for anatomical delineation (all p ≤ 0.001). Fat saturation improved for PD-FS coronal and axial, motion artefacts improved for PD-FS coronal and sagittal (and slightly for axial), and foreign-body artefacts were comparable. Quantitatively, PD-FS showed higher muscle SNR and higher gSNR/gCNR with DL (bone SNR non-significant); T2 showed higher bone SNR and higher CNR/gCNR but lower muscle SNR/gSNR; and T1 showed lower SNR/gSNR with preserved CNR. Compared with sMRI, DL-MRI achieved a twofold improvement in in-plane resolution (0.4 × 0.4 mm² vs. 0.2 × 0.2 mm²) and reduced slice thickness (3.0 mm vs. 2.5 mm. and down to 1.0 mm for T2-weighted sequences), while slightly shortening total scan time (10:14 min vs. 9:30 min).
conclusionDL-MRI provided superior image quality and higher resolution over time-optimized standard knee MRI at 3 Tesla.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.