ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Evaluation of the image quality index with MRI motion artifacts on tumor segmentation using deep learning.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
Motion artifacts substantially degrade magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality and can reduce diagnostic accuracy. Although deep learning-based segmentation has achieved high performance, the degree of motion-related degradation that begins to impair tumor contour delineation and the corresponding image quality criteria remains unclear. This study investigated the relationship between image quality and the agreement of segmentation outputs obtained from original and motion-degraded MRI images in deep learning-based brain tumor segmentation and explored tentative reference values for image quality metrics. Tumor contours were manually delineated on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images from patients with glioma, and a segmentation model was tested. Motion artifact images were then generated through simulation, and the relationship between the generated tumor contours and image quality was analyzed. The tumor contours were evaluated using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), while image quality was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), structural similarity index measure (SSIM), and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). No strong correlations were observed between DSC and the evaluated image quality metrics. However, SSIM showed a positive association with visual assessment, suggesting that it better reflects tumor boundary visibility and perceived image degradation than other indices. In particular, an SSIM of 0.8 corresponded to a visual assessment score of 2 or higher, indicating a quality level at which observers can visually distinguish tumor boundaries. Because these findings may depend on the number of cases and the segmentation model used, further validation with clinical images is required to establish practical image quality criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771087What 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.