Table 2.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of DWI image quality with and without DLR
| Qualitative analysis (n = 193) | DWI without DLR | DWI with DLR | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artifacts | 3.84 ± 0.99 | 3.61 ± 0.82 | 0.08 |
| Lesion conspicuity | 3.73 ± 0.95 | 4.13 ± 0.97 | < 0.001 |
| Liver edge sharpness and vessel clarity | 3.51 ± 0.98 | 3.84 ± 0.99 | < 0.001 |
| Overall image quality | 3.68 ± 0.93 | 4.01 ± 0.94 | < 0.001 |
| Quantitative analysis (n = 182) | |||
| SNRLiver | 36.3 ± 16.1 | 39.6 ± 14.3 | 0.039 |
| SNRLesion | 56.9 ± 28.6 | 63.5 ± 26.3 | 0.006 |
| CNR | 33.8 ± 27.6 | 39.7 ± 24.5 | 0.006 |
| ERD (mm) | 3.34 ± 0.39 | 2.38 ± 0.36 | < 0.001 |
Data are shown as mean values ± deviation
DLR deep learning reconstruction, SNRLiver signal-to-noise ratio of liver, SNRLesion signal-to-noise ratio of lesion, CNR contrast-to-noise ratio, ERD edge rise distance