ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Deep learning reconstruction versus conventional parallel imaging for sagittal T2-weighted MRI in cervical cancer: a comparison of acceleration factors.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal acceleration strategy for deep learning reconstruction (DLR) in cervical cancer T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) remains unestablished.
methodsForty-eight patients with primary cervical cancer prospectively underwent 3.0T pelvic MRI. Sagittal T2WI was acquired using conventional parallel imaging (Conv) and DLR at acceleration factors (AF) 2 and 3. Two radiologists evaluated quantitative metrics and six qualitative metrics.
resultsCompared to conventional imaging at the same acceleration, DLR significantly improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) (DL_AF2 vs. Conv_AF2, adjusted p = 0.005; DL_AF3 vs. Conv_AF3, adjusted p < 0.001). No significant quantitative differences were found between AF2 and AF3 for either reconstruction method. Despite statistically comparable objective metrics between DL_AF2 and DL_AF3, DL_AF2 received significantly higher subjective scores across all six qualitative dimensions (all adjusted p < 0.001), with median scores of 5 for all image quality metrics. DL_AF3 demonstrated significantly lower diagnostic confidence scores, suggesting perceptual over-smoothing at higher acceleration.
conclusionAt equivalent scan times, DLR with moderate acceleration (AF 2) achieves the optimal balance between objective image quality and subjective anatomical fidelity for sagittal T2WI in cervical cancer evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474716What 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.