ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2026
Aleatoric uncertainty in accelerated prostate MRI reconstruction: echo-train dropout versus Gaussian noise Monte Carlo sampling.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 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
Abstract
purposeAlthough undersampling combined with deep learning (DL)-based reconstruction shortens MRI acquisition, it increases the chance of inaccuracies, highlighting the need for quantifiable uncertainty measures. Two inference-time perturbation strategies, echo-train dropout (ET-Drop) and Gaussian noise Monte Carlo sampling (GN-MC), were compared in terms of the correlation between their variance-based uncertainty maps and absolute reconstruction error in DL-accelerated T2w prostate MRI.
methodsThis retrospective multi-center study used a publicly available dataset with 312 k-spaces from NYU for training and a dataset with 120 k-spaces from University Medical Center Groningen for external validation. Fully sampled 3 T data were retrospectively undersampled to acceleration factors R = 3 and R = 6 and reconstructed by a vSHARP model. Per slice, five GN-MC perturbations were reconstructed by adding complex noise at 2.5σ, and five ET-Drop perturbations, created by omitting non-central echo trains. Voxel-wise aleatoric uncertainty was defined as the variance (σ
resultsBoth uncertainties yielded moderate slice-level correlations with absolute error. At R = 3, ET-Drop slightly outperformed GN-MC (median ρ = 0.39 vs 0.35; p < 0.001). At R = 6, the ranking reversed (0.44 vs 0.40; p < 0.001). Correlations within the prostate fell to 0.10-0.15. ET-Drop variance maps were dominated by coil sensitivities.
conclusionBoth perturbation strategies yield variance-based uncertainty maps that correlate moderately with voxel-wise error. More importantly, they consistently highlighted acquisition-related fragility, supporting the role of uncertainty mapping as a useful quality-control tool in prostate MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42192056What 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.