ArticleKorean journal of radiology2025
Effects of Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction on the Quality of Accelerated Contrast-Enhanced Neck MRI.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of super-resolution deep learning reconstruction on three-dimensional constructive interference in steady state for enhanced visualization of vestibular schwannomas.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Quantification of edge-enhancing effects using accelerated deep learning reconstructed orbital MRI sequences.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Article
- Commentary on "Effects of Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction on the Quality of Accelerated Contrast-Enhanced Neck MRI".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Response to Commentary on "Effects of Deep Learning-Based Reconstruction on the Quality of Accelerated Contrast-Enhanced Neck MRI".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the quality of deep learning-reconstructed turbo spin-echo (DL-TSE) and conventionally interpolated turbo spin-echo (Conv-TSE) techniques in contrast-enhanced MRI of the neck. MATERIALS AND
methodsContrast-enhanced T1-weighted DL-TSE and Conv-TSE images were acquired using 3T scanners from 106 patients. DL-TSE employed a closed-source, 'work-in-progress' (WIP No. 1062, iTSE, version 10; Siemens Healthineers) algorithm for interpolation and denoising to achieve the same in-plane resolution (axial: 0.26 × 0.26 mm²; coronal: 0.29 × 0.29 mm²) while reducing scan times by 15.9% and 52.6% for axial and coronal scans, respectively. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) and percent signal ghosting were measured using stationary and flow phantom scans, respectively. In patient images, non-uniformity (NU), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and regional mucosal FWHM were evaluated. Two neuroradiologists visually rated the patient images for overall quality, sharpness, regional mucosal conspicuity, artifacts, and lesions using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsFWHM in the stationary phantom scan was consistently sharper in DL-TSE. The percent signal ghosting outside the flow phantom was lower in DL-TSE (0.06% vs. 0.14%) but higher within the phantom (8.92% vs. 1.75%) compared to Conv-TSE. In patient scans, DL-TSE showed non-inferior NU and higher CNR. Regional mucosal FWHM was significantly better in DL-TSE, particularly in the oropharynx (coronal: 1.08 ± 0.31 vs. 1.52 ± 0.46 mm) and hypopharynx (coronal: 1.26 ± 0.35 vs. 1.91 ± 0.56 mm) (both
conclusionDL-based reconstruction applied to accelerated neck MRI improves overall image quality, sharpness, mucosal conspicuity in motion-prone regions, and lesion detection confidence. Despite more pronounced ghost artifacts overlapping anatomical structures, DL-TSE enables substantial scan time reduction while enhancing diagnostic performance.
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.