Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

SAGE Publications, Neuroradiology Journal, The, 3(37), p. 323-331, 2024

DOI: 10.1177/19714009231224428

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Diagnostic evaluation of deep learning accelerated lumbar spine MRI

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

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.