ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026
Evaluation of generative adversarial network-based postprocessing super-resolution for lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the feasibility of generative adversarial network (GAN)-based postprocessing super-resolution for T2-weighted lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using both objective resolution metrics and perceptual assessment. Sagittal lumbar spine MRI datasets from healthy volunteers were analyzed. An enhanced super-resolution GAN (ESRGAN) was trained on downsampled images, while zero-filling, bicubic, and bilinear interpolation, as well as enhanced deep residual networks for single image super-resolution (EDSR), were used as comparators. Image quality was assessed by comparing upscaled images from 256 × 256 acquisitions with corresponding 512 × 512 reference images, using full width at half maximum (FWHM) and normalized integrated power spectrum (NIPS), along with similarity metrics including structural similarity index, peak signal-to-noise ratio, and root mean square error. Subjective image quality was evaluated using a ranking method. An additional analysis using 320 × 320 and 640 × 640 image pairs was conducted to assess consistency across resolution settings. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Friedman test with Bonferroni correction. ESRGAN showed no significant differences from the original high-resolution images in FWHM and NIPS, whereas interpolation methods and EDSR demonstrated inferior performance (P < 0.05). Although interpolation methods achieved higher scores in pixel-wise metrics, ESRGAN obtained the highest subjective ratings and interrater agreement. These findings indicate that ESRGAN better restores high-frequency structural information not captured by conventional similarity metrics. GAN-based postprocessing super-resolution may improve image quality in lumbar spine MRI and warrants further investigation of its clinical impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525326What 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.