Retrospective study demonstrates compressed sensing MPRAGE reduces scan time by 67% with reliable brain volumetry in healthy adults, indicating strong clinical feasibility.
Objectives: To assess the clinical viability of compressed sensing magnetization, we prepared a rapid acquisition gradient echo (CS-MPRAGE) for brain volume measurement by comparing its scan time and image quality with standard MPRAGE. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed a total of 40 morphologically normal MRIs from relatively young subjects (mean age 27.03 ± 5.02, range 19~40, F:M = 33:7) who underwent both CS-MPRAGE and standard MPRAGE. MRI was performed with a 3T MR scanner using a 64-channel head coil. Volumetric data analysis was conducted using commercial AI-powered quantification software. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR gray matter/white matter) were measured and compared. Qualitative analysis based on overall image quality, deep gray matter delineation, artifacts, and gray–white matter differentiation was rated on a five-point visual scoring system. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlation. Results: CS-MPRAGE had a significantly shorter scan time than standard MPRAGE (1:46 vs. 5:20 min; p < 0.001). Whole-brain volume was similar (standard-MPRAGE, 1176.89 ± 105.36; CS-MPRAGE, 1181.14 ± 105.62 mL; r = 0.988; ICC, 0.9754–0.9931). Gray matter and regional lobe volumes were comparable, while the white matter volume was slightly larger with CS-MPRAGE. CNR of the gray–white matter was significantly higher with CS-MPRAGE (left, 30.45 ± 11.21 vs. 49.53 ± 32.71; right, 30.73 ± 11.97 vs. 46.89 ± 30.40; p = 0.0001) while SNR were similar across key brain regions. Conclusions: CS-MPRAGE provides high-quality 3D images and reliable volume data with significantly reduced acquisition time and comparable image quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: