ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Comparison of Retrospective Motion Compensation Techniques for Pulmonary Dynamic Ultrashort Time to Echo MRI in Suspected Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMotion can degrade image quality during Ultrashort Time-to-Echo (UTE) pulmonary MRI and is particularly prevalent in patients with lung disease. Comprehensive assessment of the impact of motion compensation techniques on image quality and clinical interpretation is needed. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To compare the impact of retrospective motion compensation schemes on image quality and clinical interpretation of pulmonary UTE MRI in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: 21 (male = 18; mean age, 69.9 ± 8.1 years) participants with suspected IPF. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T/3 T, 3D center-out radial (gradient-echo) UTE sequence with 2× radial oversampling, while free-breathing. ASSESSMENT: Images were reconstructed to 1.25 mm isotropic resolution using five retrospective schemes: no gating, hard-gating, soft-gating, motion-resolved (XD-GRASP), and an iterative approach (iMoCo). Signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were estimated within the lung parenchyma, airways, aorta, muscles, and liver. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were estimated using the mean airway signal as reference. Image sharpness was estimated using the maximum derivative of a line profile across the diaphragm and a wavelet-based autofocus measure. Three radiologists evaluated image quality, motion artifacts on a 5-point Likert scale, and diagnostic classification of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). STATISTICAL TESTS: The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was used for qualitative reader scores and one-way ANOVA for the quantitative metrics, with p < 0.05 as the threshold for significance.
resultsCNR was highest using the iMoCo reconstructions (lung parenchyma: 1.64 ± 1.41 vs. 0.88 ± 0.81 via XD-GRASP). Image sharpness was significantly improved using compressed sensing (CS)-based techniques (XD-GRASP and iMoCo), compared to the other methods, using both diaphragm profile (CS: 6.28 ± 3.70 vs. non-CS: 3.73 ± 2.06) and wavelet metrics (CS: 2.33 ± 0.42 vs. non-CS: 2.05 ± 0.35). CS methods also demonstrated greatest image quality based on reader scores.
conclusionMotion compensation using compressed sensing methods can improve image quality and clinical utility of UTE-MRI in the identification and diagnostic classification of typical parenchymal fibrotic patterns. EVIDENCE LEVEL: Level 2-Prospective study, with a reference standard determined during the course of the study (CT imaging). 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.