Table 3. Comparison of lesion findings and image quality between routine MRI, 1.5-mm MRI without DLR, and 1.5-mm MRI + DLR.
| Reader 1 | Reader 2 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine MRI | 1.5-mm MRI without DLR | 1.5-mm MRI + DLR | P * | P † | Routine MRI | 1.5-mm MRI without DLR | 1.5-mm MRI + DLR | P * | P † | |||
| Lesion findings | ||||||||||||
| Hippocampus | ||||||||||||
| Volume loss | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 1.000 | 0.688 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.234 | 1.000 | ||
| T2 high signal intensity | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.016 | 1.000 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 0.563 | 0.109 | ||
| Loss of internal structure | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0.6 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.7 | < 0.001 | 0.424 | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.7 | 0.5 ± 0.7 | 0.011 | 0.070 | ||
| Temporal lobe | ||||||||||||
| Lesion conspicuity | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 0.8 ± 1.0 | 0.250 | 0.563 | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 0.6 ± 0.8 | 0.8 ± 1.0 | 0.148 | 0.195 | ||
| Image quality | ||||||||||||
| Overall image quality | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0.364 | < 0.001 | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 0.183 | < 0.001 | ||
| Flow artifacts | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.4 | < 0.001 | 0.018 | 3.0 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | 2.6 ± 0.5 | < 0.001 | 0.349 | ||
| Motion artifacts | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 0.152 | < 0.001 | 2.7 ± 0.6 | 2.6 ± 0.6 | 2.8 ± 0.4 | 0.043 | < 0.001 | ||
| Sharpness | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.6 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 1.000 | < 0.001 | 2.7 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.7 | 2.9 ± 0.3 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| Structure conspicuity | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 2.2 ± 0.5 | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 2.8 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 3.0 ± 0.2 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
*P-value for comparison between routine MRI and 1.5-mm MRI + DLR, †P-value for comparison between 1.5-mm MRI without DLR and 1.5-mm MRI + DLR. P-value < 0.016 indicates statistically significant difference with Bonferroni correction.
DLR = deep learning-based reconstruction