ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024
Task-based assessment for neural networks: evaluating undersampled MRI reconstructions based on human observer signal detection.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ophthalmic Image Synthesis and Analysis with Generative Adversarial Network Artificial Intelligence.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Task-based assessment for neural networks: evaluating undersampled MRI reconstructions based on human observer signal detection.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Recent research explores using neural networks to reconstruct undersampled magnetic resonance imaging. Because of the complexity of the artifacts in the reconstructed images, there is a need to develop task-based approaches to image quality. We compared conventional global quantitative metrics to evaluate image quality in undersampled images generated by a neural network with human observer performance in a detection task. The purpose is to study which acceleration (2×, 3×, 4×, 5×) would be chosen with the conventional metrics and compare it to the acceleration chosen by human observer performance. Approach: We used common global metrics for evaluating image quality: the normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) and structural similarity (SSIM). These metrics are compared with a measure of image quality that incorporates a subtle signal for a specific task to allow for image quality assessment that locally evaluates the effect of undersampling on a signal. We used a U-Net to reconstruct under-sampled images with 2×, 3×, 4×, and 5× one-dimensional undersampling rates. Cross-validation was performed for a 500- and a 4000-image training set with both SSIM and MSE losses. A two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) observer study was carried out for detecting a subtle signal (small blurred disk) from images with the 4000-image training set. Results: We found that for both loss functions, the human observer performance on the 2-AFC studies led to a choice of a 2× undersampling, but the SSIM and NRMSE led to a choice of a 3× undersampling. Conclusions: For this detection task using a subtle small signal at the edge of detectability, SSIM and NRMSE led to an overestimate of the achievable undersampling using a U-Net before a steep loss of image quality between 2×, 3×, 4×, 5× undersampling rates when compared to the performance of human observers in the detection task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.