ArticleOral radiology2026
The effect of deep learning-based compressed sensing on the image quality of contrast-enhanced 3D T1-weighted images of the maxillofacial region.
Article in Oral 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the image quality of deep learning-based Compressed SENSE (DL-based CS) reconstructed images with conventional algorithm-based Compressed SENSE (Alg-based CS) reconstructed images in contrast-enhanced 3D T1-weighted images of the maxillofacial region.
methodsThe cases of 32 patients who underwent two reconstructions, conventional Alg-based CS, and DL-based CS, were retrospectively analyzed. We set the reduction factors to 3 and 6. Thus, four types of images were obtained: Alg3, DL3, Alg6, and DL6. We calculated the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of the muscle and spinal cord and the Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM) between the two reconstructions at both the level of the tongue and oral floor. Additionally, noise, visualization of anatomical structures, and motion artifacts were subjectively assessed on a 5-point scale.
resultsA significant difference was observed between Alg3 and Alg6, indicating that a higher reduction factor results in a lower SNR. DL was useful for improving image quality, and no significant difference was observed between DL6 and Alg3. The SSIM at a reduction factor of six was smaller than that at a reduction factor of three, and this tendency was markedly noticeable in the lower face, which shows that DL is beneficial for denoising under low SNR conditions. The qualitative assessment of the noise and anatomical structure showed similar trends to the SNR.
conclusionsGiven the quantitative and qualitative analyses, DL-based CS reconstruction is useful, especially for high reduction factors and regions with low coil sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886240What 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.