Deep Learning Reconstruction for T2 Weighted Turbo-Spin-Echo Imaging of the Pelvis: Prospective Comparison With Standard T2-Weighted TSE Imaging With Respect to Image Quality, Lesion Depiction, and Acquisition Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In pelvic MRI, Turbo Spin Echo (TSE) pulse sequences are used for T2-weighted imaging. However, its lengthy acquisition time increases the potential for artifacts. Deep learning (DL) reconstruction achieves reduced scan times without the degradation in image quality associated with other accelerated techniques. Unfortunately, a comprehensive assessment of DL-reconstruction in pelvic MRI has not been performed. The objective of this prospective study was to compare the performance of DL-TSE and conventional TSE pulse sequences in a broad spectrum of pelvic MRI indications. METHODS: Fifty-five subjects (33 females and 22 males) were scanned at 3 T using DL-TSE and conventional TSE sequences in axial and/or oblique acquisition planes. Two radiologists independently assessed image quality in 6 categories: edge definition, vessel margin sharpness, T2 Contrast Dynamic Range, artifacts, overall image quality, and lesion features. The contrast ratio was calculated for quantitative assessment. A two-tailed sign test was used for assessment. RESULTS: The 2 readers found DL-TSE to deliver equal or superior image quality than conventional TSE in most cases. There were only 3 instances out of 24 where conventional TSE was scored as providing better image quality. Readers agreed on DL-TSE superiority/inferiority/equivalence in 67% of categories in the axial plane and 75% in the oblique plane. DL-TSE also demonstrated a better contrast ratio in 75% of cases. DL-TSE reduced scan time by approximately 50%. CONCLUSION: DL-accelerated TSE sequences generally provide equal or better image quality in pelvic MRI than standard TSE with significantly reduced acquisition times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".