Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
![Quantitative [18F]-Naf-PET-MRI Analysis for the Evaluation of Dynamic Bone Turnover in a Patient with Facetogenic Low Back Pain](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront.jove.com%2FCDNSource%2Fteasers%2F58491.jpg&w=3840&q=50)
Quantitative [18F]-Naf-PET-MRI Analysis for the Evaluation of Dynamic Bone Turnover in a Patient with Facetogenic Low Back Pain
Published on: August 8, 2019
Deep learning reconstruction for lumbar spine MRI acceleration: a prospective study
1Department of Radiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No. 160, Pujian Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai, 200127, China.
Background:
We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) turbo spin-echo images reconstructed using a deep learning technique (TSE-DL) with standard turbo spin-echo (TSE-SD) images of the lumbar spine regarding image quality and detection performance of common degenerative pathologies.
Methods:
This prospective, single-center study included 31 patients (15 males and 16 females; aged 51 ± 16 years (mean ± standard deviation)) who underwent lumbar spine exams with both TSE-SD and TSE-DL acquisitions for degenerative spine diseases. Images were analyzed by two radiologists and assessed for qualitative image quality using a 4-point Likert scale, quantitative signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of anatomic landmarks, and detection of common pathologies. Paired-sample t, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests, unweighted/linearly weighted Cohen κ statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficients were used.
Results:
Scan time for TSE-DL and TSE-SD protocols was 2:55 and 5:17 min:s, respectively. The overall image quality was either significantly higher for TSE-DL or not significantly different between TSE-SD and TSE-DL. TSE-DL demonstrated higher SNR and subject noise scores than TSE-SD. For pathology detection, the interreader agreement was substantial to almost perfect for TSE-DL, with κ values ranging from 0.61 to 1.00; the interprotocol agreement was almost perfect for both readers, with κ values ranging from 0.84 to 1.00. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic confidence or detection rate of common pathologies between the two sequences (p ≥ 0.081).
Conclusions:
TSE-DL allowed for a 45% reduction in scan time over TSE-SD in lumbar spine MRI without compromising the overall image quality and showed comparable detection performance of common pathologies in the evaluation of degenerative lumbar spine changes.
Relevance Statement:
Deep learning-reconstructed lumbar spine MRI protocol enabled a 45% reduction in scan time compared with conventional reconstruction, with comparable image quality and detection performance of common degenerative pathologies.
Key Points:
• Lumbar spine MRI with deep learning reconstruction has broad application prospects. • Deep learning reconstruction of lumbar spine MRI saved 45% scan time without compromising overall image quality. • When compared with standard sequences, deep learning reconstruction showed similar detection performance of common degenerative lumbar spine pathologies.
