ArticleFrontiers in radiology2026
Validation and feasibility of a deep learning-based reconstruction technology in 5.0 tesla knee joint MR imaging.
Article in Frontiers in radiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR) algorithm for optimizing conventional 5.0 Tesla knee joint MR protocols. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 69 patients who underwent both knee arthroscopy and 5.0 Tesla knee joint MR examinations using the conventional protocols before and after a DLR process with different levels. The DLR technique was applied to original images to denoise and improve their quality. Two radiologists independently measured the signal-to-noise ratio (SNRs) in cartilage, meniscus, bone, ligament, and muscle, and graded image quality from the dimensions of different tissues' delineation clarity, global artifact severity, and overall image quality using a 5-point Likert scale. Moreover, the diagnostic performance was evaluated with different types of images, compared to the results of knee arthroscopy. Cohen's kappa test was employed to assess the agreement of image quality scoring and diagnosis. Results: Compared to conventional images, those DLR ones demonstrated significant improvement in SNRs, with the increasement of 12.61% to 350.63% across various sequences. Two radiologists showed good-to-excellent agreement in image quality assessment, with kappa values ranging from 0.72 to 0.82. Regarding diagnostic performance, the DLR images moderately outperformed the non-DLR ones, as evidenced by a bit higher diagnostic agreement with the results of knee arthroscopy (DLR: kappa = 0.908-1; non-DLR: kappa = 0.882-0.963). Conclusions: The DLR technique could improve 5.0 Tesla knee MR images' quality and obtain as least equal diagnostic efficiency without extra scan time, demonstrating its potential clinical applicability.
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.