ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Benchmarking Hybrid CNN-Transformer Versus Pure Transformer Architectures for Accelerated Hyperpolarized
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 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
Abstract
backgroundHyperpolarized PURPOSE: To present a comprehensive evaluation of transformer and hybrid CNN-transformer architectures integrating dual-domain (k-space and image) processing for HP STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Two hundred five participants (22 healthy [male and female, 18-85 years], 26 COPD [male and female, 50-85 years], 90 asthma [male and female, 18-70 years], 67 long-COVID [male and female, 18-70 years]) yielding 1640 2D slices. Dataset split: 80% training (1312 slices), 10% validation (164 slices), 10% test (164 slices). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T; 3D fast gradient-recalled echo. ASSESSMENT: Five architectures were compared: KTMR (hybrid transformer-CNN), KIKI-net (pure CNN), ReconFormer, SwinMR, and MR-IPT (pure transformer) at acceleration factors of 3, 7, and 10. Performance was assessed using peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR), structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and normalized mean squared error (NMSE). Ventilation defect percentage (VDP) agreement with semi-automated analysis was evaluated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Friedman test with post hoc Dunn's test and Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons. Significance level: p < 0.05.
resultsAt 10-fold acceleration, KTMR produced PSNR of 36.4 ± 2.8 dB and SSIM of 0.88 ± 0.12, significantly outperforming KIKI-net (32.5 ± 3.4 dB, 0.81 ± 0.12), ReconFormer (29.7 ± 2.6 dB, 0.76 ± 0.12), SwinMR (30.5 ± 2.8 dB, 0.76 ± 0.09), and MR-IPT (28.8 ± 2.4 dB, 0.74 ± 0.11). VDP measurements showed mean bias of 1.94% at 3-fold, 2.12% at 7-fold, and 2.69% at 10-fold acceleration. DATA
conclusionKTMR demonstrated superior performance for HP EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.