ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2026
Clinical evaluation of deep learning accelerated 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 T and 3 T.
Article in European journal of 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRoutine clinical 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is typically performed either as lower resolution breath-hold (BH) acquisition or higher resolution triggered navigator breathing (NAV) acquisition with a longer acquisition time, potentially limiting clinically applicability. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical feasibility of MRCP obtained using a new deep learning acceleration approach, Sonic DL MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty-four and 32 patients underwent 1.5 T and 3 T MRCP scans, respectively. The standard 3D MRCP was obtained using a BH and NAV. Two SDL MRCP acquisitions for each magnetic field were performed with BH and scan times of 11-17 s, utilizing the SDL based acquisition and reconstruction technique. Three radiologists visually evaluated all MRCP datasets for 4 different features: overall image quality, image noise, image sharpness and artifacts. Differences were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank and chi-squared tests.
resultsAt both field strengths (1.5 T and 3 T) the proportion of overall image quality scores of 3 or higher (good, very good and excellent) and proportion of cases with reduced artifacts were better (p < 0.05) for both SDL MRCP acquisitions compared to the standard with NAV or BH. However, SDL MRCP was not superior to the standard MRCP technique for all evaluated feature categories and scoring varied between readers.
conclusionSDL MRCP demonstrated improved image quality consistency and scan time, however, variations between radiologists in quality scores were present, underlying the need for future development and validation.
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.