ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Enhancing resolution and image quality in musculoskeletal MRI using deep learning reconstruction.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDeep learning-based noise reduction enhances image quality, overcoming the tradeoff among acquisition time, spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We implemented deep learning reconstruction (DLR) into a 1.5-T musculoskeletal (MSK) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to improve image quality without compromising SNR. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 39 MRI examinations performed on a 1.5-T scanner using standard-resolution (SR) sequences and sequences with higher resolution reconstructed with DLR (HR-DLR). Exams of the knees, shoulders, ankles, and hips were evaluated. The included sequences were: three-dimensional T2-weighted fast advanced spin-echo; T1-weighted and proton density-weighted fast spin-echo. One expert reader and two junior readers in agreement evaluated the visibility of various structures using a 5-point Likert scale in a blind manner. A fourth reader estimated the SNR and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in bone and muscle. A mixed model was used to compare HR-DLR versus SR measures. The agreement between radiologists was assessed with the Kendall τ coefficient.
resultsThe HR-DLR sequences globally had a smaller pixel size and shorter acquisition time. A good inter-reader agreement was obtained for SR sequences (0.613 ≤ τ ≤ 0.788) and even higher levels of agreement for HR-DLR sequences (0.682 ≤ τ ≤ 0.961). All the structures had higher or similar Likert scores in HR-DLR sequences (p < 0.001), regardless of joint and sequence contrast. Apparent SNR and CNR of HR-DLR and SR were similar.
conclusionIncorporating DLR into 1.5-T MSK MRI protocols enhances resolution and maintains SNR and CNR, improving MSK structure visualization. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of deep learning reconstruction in improving the efficiency of 1.5-T musculoskeletal MRI exams. Despite shorter acquisition times, the visibility of key MSK structures was consistently rated as superior or similar in higher-resolution images with DLR. KEY POINTS: MRI is one of the primary diagnostic tools for evaluating MSK injuries and disorders. Deep learning reconstruction (DLR) implemented in a 1.5-T MSK protocol improved resolution, still preserving SNR and CNR. Higher scores were assigned by different raters to the DLR images, showing image quality improvement.
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.