Evaluation of highly accelerated wave controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI) susceptibility-weighted imaging in the non-sedated pediatric setting: a pilot study

Conklin, John; Tabari, Azadeh; Longo, Maria Gabriela Figueiró; Setsompop, Kawin; Cauley, Stephen F.; Kirsch, John E.; Huang, Susie Y.; Rapalino, Otto; Gee, Michael S.; Caruso, Paul

doi:10.1007/s00247-021-05273-8

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two readers used a predefined 5-point Likert scale, where positive numbers favored the sequence on the right side of the screen and negative numbers favored the sequence on the left of the screen (Table 3). 31 A third neuroradiologist (*BLINDED*) with 10 years of experience adjudicated the disagreements between the readers.…”

Section: Image Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic evaluation of deep learning accelerated lumbar spine MRI

Awan,

Goncalves Filho,

Tabari

et al. 2024

Neuroradiol J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose Deep learning (DL) accelerated MR techniques have emerged as a promising approach to accelerate routine MR exams. While prior studies explored DL acceleration for specific lumbar MRI sequences, a gap remains in comprehending the impact of a fully DL-based MRI protocol on scan time and diagnostic quality for routine lumbar spine MRI. To address this, we assessed the image quality and diagnostic performance of a DL-accelerated lumbar spine MRI protocol in comparison to a conventional protocol. Methods We prospectively evaluated 36 consecutive outpatients undergoing non-contrast enhanced lumbar spine MRIs. Both protocols included sagittal T1, T2, STIR, and axial T2-weighted images. Two blinded neuroradiologists independently reviewed images for foraminal stenosis, spinal canal stenosis, nerve root compression, and facet arthropathy. Grading comparison employed the Wilcoxon signed rank test. For the head-to-head comparison, a 5-point Likert scale to assess image quality, considering artifacts, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), anatomical structure visualization, and overall diagnostic quality. We applied a 15% noninferiority margin to determine whether the DL-accelerated protocol was noninferior. Results No significant differences existed between protocols when evaluating foraminal and spinal canal stenosis, nerve compression, or facet arthropathy (all p > .05). The DL-spine protocol was noninferior for overall diagnostic quality and visualization of the cord, CSF, intervertebral disc, and nerve roots. However, it exhibited reduced SNR and increased artifact perception. Interobserver reproducibility ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.50–0.76). Conclusion Our study indicates that DL reconstruction in spine imaging effectively reduces acquisition times while maintaining comparable diagnostic quality to conventional MRI.

show abstract

Section: Image Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%