ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Preoperative MRI-based deep learning reconstruction and classification model for assessing rectal cancer.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundTo determine whether deep learning reconstruction (DLR) could improve the image quality of rectal MR images, and to explore the discrimination of the TN stage of rectal cancer by different readers and deep learning classification models, compared with conventional MR images without DLR.
methodsImages of high-resolution T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (CE-T1WI) from patients with pathologically diagnosed rectal cancer were retrospectively processed with and without DLR and assessed by five readers. The first two readers measured the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the lesions. The overall image quality and lesion display performance for each sequence with and without DLR were independently scored using a five-point scale, and the TN stage of rectal cancer lesions was evaluated by the other three readers. Fifty of the patients were randomly selected to further make a comparison between DLR and traditional denoising filter. Deep learning classification models were developed and compared for the TN stage. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the proposed model.
resultsOverall, 178 patients were evaluated. The SNR and CNR of the lesion on images with DLR were significantly higher than those without DLR, for T2WI, DWI and CE-T1WI, respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed in overall image quality and lesion display performance between images with and without DLR (p < 0.0001). The image quality scores, SNR, and CNR values of DLR image set were significantly larger than those of original and filter enhancement image sets (all p values < 0.05) for all the three sequences, respectively. The deep learning classification models with DLR achieved good discrimination of the TN stage, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.937 (95% CI 0.839-0.977) and 0.824 (95% CI 0.684-0.913) in the test sets, respectively.
conclusionDeep learning reconstruction and classification models could improve the image quality of rectal MRI images and enhance the diagnostic performance for determining the TN stage of patients with rectal cancer.
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.