Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether deep learning reconstruction (DLR) improves the image quality of intracranial magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) at 1.5 T. Materials and methods In this retrospective study, MRA images of 40 patients (21 males and 19 females; mean age, 65.8 ± 13.2 years) were reconstructed with and without the DLR technique (DLR image and non-DLR image, respectively). Quantitative image analysis was performed by placing regions of interest on the basilar artery and cerebrospinal fluid in the prepontine cistern. We calculated the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for analyses of the basilar artery. Two experienced radiologists evaluated the depiction of structures (the right internal carotid artery, right ophthalmic artery, basilar artery, and right superior cerebellar artery), artifacts, subjective noise and overall image quality in a qualitative image analysis. Scores were compared in the quantitative and qualitative image analyses between the DLR and non-DLR images using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results The SNR and CNR for the basilar artery were significantly higher for the DLR images than for the non-DLR images (p < 0.001). Qualitative image analysis scores (p < 0.003 and p < 0.005 for readers 1 and 2, respectively), excluding those for artifacts (p = 0.072–0.565), were also significantly higher for the DLR images than for the non-DLR images. Conclusion DLR enables the production of higher quality 1.5 T intracranial MRA images with improved visualization of arteries.
Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the deep learning reconstruction (DLR) with single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) (DLR-S) technique in pelvic helical computed tomography (CT) images for patients with metal hip prostheses and compare it with DLR and hybrid iterative reconstruction (IR) with SEMAR (IR-S). Materials and methods This retrospective study included 26 patients (mean age 68.6 ± 16.6 years, with 9 males and 17 females) with metal hip prostheses who underwent a CT examination including the pelvis. Axial pelvic CT images were reconstructed using DLR-S, DLR, and IR-S. In one-by-one qualitative analyses, two radiologists evaluated the degree of metal artifacts, noise, and pelvic structure depiction. In side-by-side qualitative analyses (DLR-S vs. IR-S), the two radiologists evaluated metal artifacts and overall quality. By placing regions of interest on the bladder and psoas muscle, the standard deviations of their CT attenuation were recorded, and the artifact index was calculated based on them. Results were compared between DLR-S vs. DLR and DLR vs. IR-S using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results In one-by-one qualitative analyses, metal artifacts and structure depiction in DLR-S were significantly better than those in DLR; however, between DLR-S and IR-S, significant differences were noted only for reader 1. Image noise in DLR-S was rated as significantly reduced compared with that in IR-S by both readers. In side-by-side analyses, both readers rated that the DLR-S images are significantly better than IR-S images regarding overall image quality and metal artifacts. The median (interquartile range) of the artifact index for DLR-S was 10.1 (4.4–16.0) and was significantly better than those for DLR (23.1, 6.5–36.1) and IR-S (11.4, 7.8–17.9). Conclusion DLR-S provided better pelvic CT images in patients with metal hip prostheses than IR-S and DLR.
To compare the quality and interobserver agreement in the evaluation of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) on computed tomography (CT) images between deep-learning reconstruction (DLR) and hybrid iterative reconstruction (hybrid IR). This retrospective study included 30 patients (age, 71.5 ± 12.5 years; 20 men) who underwent unenhanced lumbar CT. Axial and sagittal CT images were reconstructed using hybrid IR and DLR. In the quantitative analysis, a radiologist placed regions of interest within the aorta and recorded the standard deviation of the CT attenuation (i.e., quantitative image noise). In the qualitative analysis, 2 other blinded radiologists evaluated the subjective image noise, depictions of structures, overall image quality, and degree of LSS. The quantitative image noise in DLR (14.8 ± 1.9/14.2 ± 1.8 in axial/sagittal images) was significantly lower than that in hybrid IR (21.4 ± 4.4/20.6 ± 4.0) (P < .0001 for both, paired t test). Subjective image noise, depictions of structures, and overall image quality were significantly better with DLR than with hybrid IR (P < .006, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Interobserver agreements in the evaluation of LSS (with 95% confidence interval) were 0.732 (0.712–0.751) and 0.794 (0.781–0.807) for hybrid IR and DLR, respectively. DLR provided images with improved quality and higher interobserver agreement in the evaluation of LSS in lumbar CT than hybrid IR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.