A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Optimizing contrast-enhanced abdominal MRI: A comparative study of deep learning and standard VIBE techniques. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: To validate a deep learning (DL) reconstruction technique for faster post-contrast enhanced coronal Volume Interpolated Breath-hold Examination (VIBE) sequences and assess its image quality compared to conventionally acquired coronal VIBE sequences.

Methods: This prospective study included 151 patients undergoing clinically indicated upper abdominal MRI acquired on 3 T scanners. Two coronal T1 fat-suppressed VIBE sequences were acquired: a DL-reconstructed sequence (VIBE) and a standard sequence (VIBE). Three radiologists independently evaluated six image quality parameters: overall image quality, perceived signal-to-noise ratio, severity of artifacts, liver edge sharpness, liver vessel sharpness, and lesion conspicuity, using a 4-point Likert scale. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Gwet's AC2. Ordinal mixed-effects regression models were used to compare VIBE and VIBE.

Results: Acquisition times were 10.2 s for VIBE compared to 22.3 s for VIBE. VIBE demonstrated superior overall image quality (OR 1.95, 95 % CI: 1.44-2.65, p < 0.001), reduced image noise (OR 3.02, 95 % CI: 2.26-4.05, p < 0.001), enhanced liver edge sharpness (OR 3.68, 95 % CI: 2.63-5.15, p < 0.001), improved liver vessel sharpness (OR 4.43, 95 % CI: 3.13-6.27, p < 0.001), and better lesion conspicuity (OR 9.03, 95 % CI: 6.34-12.85, p < 0.001) compared to VIBE. However, VIBE showed increased severity of peripheral artifacts (OR 0.13, p < 0.001). VIBE detected 137/138 (99.3 %) focal liver lesions, while VIBE detected 131/138 (94.9 %). Inter-reader agreement ranged from good to very good for both sequences.

Conclusion: The DL-reconstructed VIBE sequence significantly outperformed the standard breath-hold VIBE in image quality and lesion detection, while reducing acquisition time. This technique shows promise for enhancing the diagnostic capabilities of contrast-enhanced abdominal MRI.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2025.110581DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

image quality
16
vibe
10
abdominal mri
8
deep learning
8
vibe sequences
8
sequence vibe
8
optimizing contrast-enhanced
4
contrast-enhanced abdominal
4
mri comparative
4
comparative study
4

Similar Publications