Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

DCRA-Net: Attention-Enabled Reconstruction Model for Dynamic Fetal Cardiac MRI

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read DCRA-Net, an attention-based encoder-decoder, reconstructs 8x accelerated fetal cardiac MRI with better fidelity to heart motion than L+S, k-GIN, and 3D U-Net.

desk verdict A carefully reported and code-released fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction method with a genuine strength in visual dynamics evaluation, but the headline superiority over k-GIN is not established because the baseline ran far below its published performance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15342 v1 pith:J5XEGXJM submitted 2024-12-19 eess.IV cs.CV

Denis Prokopenko , David F.A. Lloyd , Amedeo Chiribiri , Daniel Rueckert , Joseph V. Hajnal This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords dynamicfetalcardiacMRIreconstructiondeeplearningattentionmechanismtemporalfrequencyrepresentationdataconsistencyundersamplingk-tSENSE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

DCRA-Net is a deep-learning reconstruction model that aims to recover the dynamics of the fetal heart from heavily undersampled, free-running (non-gated) MRI. The paper's central claim is that combining factorised spatial and temporal self-attention with a temporal-frequency representation of the data and a data-consistency layer produces higher-fidelity reconstructions at 8x acceleration than established methods such as L+S, k-GIN, and a convolutional 3D U-Net. This matters because the fetal heart beats at 110-170 beats per minute and is small, so standard reconstructions blur or miss its motion. The authors report the best scores on both fetal and adult cardiac data with lattice and VISTA undersampling, with the fetal lattice case reaching PSNR of 38 and SSIM of 0.989.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is factorised attention over space and time inside an encoder-decoder: each block applies a spatial self-attention layer followed by a temporal self-attention layer, treating the other dimension as the batch axis, which keeps computational cost manageable. The paper argues that the temporal-frequency representation of the input is especially important: outside the heart the anatomy is almost static, so its signal is sparse and concentrated in low temporal frequencies, and representing the data that way lets the network resolve the high-frequency harmonics of the fetal heartbeat. A data-consistency layer adds the input k-space data as a residual connection, and the paper shows via ablation that both the frequency representation and data consistency improve scores, with the frequency representation contributing the larger effect.

What would settle it

Acquire a set of fetal cardiac slices with a fully sampled or multi-coil reference (or simulate data from a digital phantom with known ground truth), retrospectively undersample at 8x, reconstruct with DCRA-Net, and compare the output to the true images rather than to k-t SENSE targets; if the recovered heartbeat harmonics disappear or PSNR and SSIM fall sharply relative to the reported values, the central claim of high-fidelity dynamic recovery would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces DCRA-Net, a 2D+time model built from encoder and decoder blocks that each contain ResNet convolutions, a spatial self-attention layer, and a temporal self-attention layer, with a data-consistency residual connection. The key design choice is to feed the network the temporal Fourier representation of the image sequence rather than raw time frames, because static anatomy concentrates in low temporal frequencies while the fetal heartbeat appears as higher harmonics. On retrospectively 8x-undersampled single-coil data, DCRA-Net outperforms L+S, k-GIN, and 3D U-Net on NMSE, PSNR, and SSIM for both fetal and adult datasets and for both lattice and VISTA sampling patterns. Visual and temporal-frequency comparisons show that the proposed model recovers the periodic fetal heart motion and its harmonics, whereas comparators capture maternal breathing but fail to resolve the heartbeat.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the k-t SENSE reconstructions used as ground truth are accurate enough to be treated as true images; if they contain residual artefacts or temporal blurring, DCRA-Net will be trained to reproduce them and the reported quality scores will not reflect true fidelity to the underlying anatomy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DCRA-Net performs as claimed, fetal cardiac MRI can be reconstructed from 8x accelerated non-gated scans with enough temporal fidelity to visualise the fetal heartbeat without ECG gating or breath-holding.
  • The method's success on adult cardiac data suggests the architecture transfers beyond fetal imaging to other dynamic MRI applications.
  • The ablation indicates that temporal-frequency representation and data consistency are useful components for dynamic MRI reconstruction, not just for this network.
  • The large gap between DCRA-Net and sliding-window reconstruction shows that global similarity metrics alone can miss clinically important dynamic content; temporal evaluation matters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the training targets are k-t SENSE reconstructions of 8x-accelerated data rather than native fully-sampled images, so the reported PSNR and SSIM measure fidelity to those reconstructions; if they contain residual aliasing or temporal blurring, DCRA-Net may reproduce those artefacts and true-image fidelity could be lower.
  • A practical implication of the limited generalisation across acceleration rates is that deploying DCRA-Net at a new acceleration factor would likely require retraining on data at that factor, rather than relying on a single model.
  • The same factorised attention plus temporal-frequency design could be tested on other dynamic imaging modalities, such as perfusion or functional MRI, where a fast periodic signal sits on a slowly varying background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DCRA-Net, a 2D+time encoder-decoder model for dynamic fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction, combining spatial and temporal self-attention, a temporal-frequency representation of the data, and a data-consistency layer. The model is trained and tested on retrospectively undersampled complex-valued single-coil data from 42 fetal subjects and 153 adult subjects, and evaluated at 8x acceleration under both lattice and VISTA sampling patterns. The authors report that DCRA-Net outperforms L+S, k-GIN, and a 3D U-Net baseline in terms of NMSE, PSNR, and SSIM, with the strongest results on lattice sampling. The paper also includes an ablation study on data representation and data consistency, and a generalization experiment from 4x to 8x acceleration. The code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the comparative results are reliable, DCRA-Net would be a meaningful advance for fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction, where recovering the fast fetal heart motion is especially challenging and where the paper's visual-frequency analysis provides a useful way to expose motion errors that global metrics mask. The public code, the use of the official k-GIN implementation, and the inclusion of an adult cardiac dataset as a native domain for comparators are commendable strengths. However, the significance of the comparative claim is currently limited by large unexplained gaps between the k-GIN baseline in this paper and its published performance, and by the fact that the ground truth is itself a k-t SENSE reconstruction rather than native fully sampled data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Tables I and II; Discussion] The central claim that DCRA-Net outperforms k-GIN is not yet established because the k-GIN baseline performs far below its published level. For example, on adult 8x VISTA data k-GIN reaches SSIM 0.431 and PSNR 16.428, and on lattice data SSIM 0.277, whereas the original k-GIN paper reports much higher values on adult cardiac data. The authors acknowledge in the Discussion that 'L+S and k-GIN results were less successful than previously published performance [19], [40]' and attribute this to dataset size and VISTA masks, but they do not provide evidence that the k-GIN model was running at a faithful configuration. Since the paper's contribution is explicitly comparative, the authors should either reproduce k-GIN with its original checkpoints or a carefully tuned hyperparameter setting (using a validation split), or substantially temper their superiority claim.
  2. [Section IV.B and Table IV] The ablation study used to select the final model configuration appears to be evaluated on the test data used for the main performance comparison. The paper states that 'Following systematic testing (see ablation study in section V) we will present most results for the temporal frequency representation,' and Table IV reports results on fetal lattice data without specifying whether this is a training, validation, or test split. If the test set was used to choose the temporal-frequency representation and data-consistency setting, then the final numbers in Table I are obtained after model selection on the test set and are optimistically biased. Please clarify the data split used for the ablation and, if necessary, re-run the model selection on a separate validation subset.
  3. [Section IV.A and Section VI] The ground truth for both fetal and adult data is itself a reconstruction rather than native fully sampled images: the fetal data are k-t SENSE reconstructions from 8x accelerated acquisitions, and the adult data are single-coil cine reconstructions. The Discussion acknowledges this for the fetal case, but the abstract and Section V state that DCRA-Net 'delivered the best reconstruction quality' without this qualification. Because the model is trained to reproduce the k-t SENSE output, any residual aliasing or temporal smoothing in k-t SENSE is part of the target, and the reported PSNR/SSIM values measure fidelity to that reconstruction, not to an unaliased fully sampled ground truth. Please qualify the accuracy claims and discuss how this limitation affects the clinical interpretation of the reported metrics.
  4. [Section V, Tables I and II] No statistical significance testing is provided for any of the pairwise comparisons. Differences between DCRA-Net and the 3D U-Net on lattice fetal data (SSIM 0.989 ± 0.014 vs 0.984 ± 0.017) are small relative to the slice-level standard deviations, and the adult k-GIN comparison is based on a baseline that is admittedly underperforming. Please add paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank across test subjects or slices) or confidence intervals for the key comparisons in Tables I and II so that the improvement claims can be properly assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'sampling patters' should read 'sampling patterns'.
  2. [Section IV.B and Tables I-II] The baselines labeled 'Average' and 'Sl. Window' in Table I are not described in the experimental setup; please define these methods explicitly, including how the average and sliding-window reconstructions were computed.
  3. [Table IV] Table IV should state explicitly whether the ablation results are computed on training, validation, or test data; this information is essential for interpreting the model-selection procedure.
  4. [Section VI] The sentence 'Within these constraints assumption, we managed to provide crucial insights...' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten, for example as 'Within these constraints, we assume...' or 'With these constraints, we managed...'.
  5. [References [49] and [50]] References [49] and [50] both describe the same PIQ software package; consider citing only one of them, or clarify the distinction between the two entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the performance claims rest on held-out test data, and the acknowledged limitations concern benchmark realism, not logical circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is that DCRA-Net outperforms L+S, k-GIN, and 3D U-Net on retrospectively undersampled fetal and adult cardiac MRI. This claim is supported by held-out test-set metrics (Tables I and II), training/test splits with non-overlapping subjects, and a documented ablation study (Table IV). No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction. The data-consistency layer is a standard residual constraint that enforces agreement with measured k-space samples; it is not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The ground-truth images for fetal data are k-t SENSE reconstructions rather than native fully-sampled images, which the Discussion explicitly acknowledges: "the present work relied on target unaliased reconstructions, rather than native undersampled data for training and testing." This is a limitation on external validity or simulation realism, but it is not circular: the network input is a retrospectively undersampled version of the target, and the target is not a function of the network output or of the fitted parameters. The self-citations to the authors' prior work, e.g. [11] and [12], are used as motivation and as a description of the 3D U-Net baseline; neither is load-bearing for the core comparison, and the baseline is implemented and evaluated on the same held-out data rather than being assumed superior by citation. The Discussion's admission that "L+S and k-GIN results were less successful than previously published performance [19], [40]" is a potential fairness or implementation-strength concern about baseline quality, not a circularity. Likewise, the claim that k-GIN generalizes across acceleration factors while DCRA-Net does not (Table III) is an empirical finding, not a self-referential one. There are no imported uniqueness theorems, no ansatz smuggled via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new organization. Overall, the evaluation is self-contained against held-out benchmarks, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the simulated retrospective undersampling setup and on a set of architecture and optimization hyperparameters chosen by the authors. The ground truth images are themselves reconstructions from k-t SENSE of 8x accelerated acquisitions, so the model learns to approximate those reconstructions rather than native fully-sampled images. The listed parameters are the manually chosen values that affect the reported results.

free parameters (14)
  • Trainable network weights (implicit)
    The encoder-decoder and attention layers contain millions of learnable parameters optimized on MAE loss over 50 epochs; treated as a single category rather than enumerated.
  • Network channel count C = 64
    Number of channels in the initial feature representation; chosen by hand and affects model capacity and performance.
  • Number of encoder/decoder blocks = 3
    Depth of the architecture; chosen by hand.
  • Attention heads = 8
    Number of heads in spatial and temporal self-attention layers.
  • Feature size per attention head = 32
    Dimension of each attention head.
  • Learning rate = 1e-4
    Optimization step size for training.
  • Training epochs = 50
    Number of passes over the training data.
  • Loss function = MAE
    Mean absolute error between prediction and ground truth.
  • Number of frames per sequence = 32
    Temporal length used; the paper states preliminary tests showed frame offset did not significantly impact performance.
  • Image resolution = 96x96 (fetal), 160x160 (adult)
    Spatial size after scaling and center-cropping.
  • VISTA density parameter = 0.7
    Controls sampling density in VISTA masks.
  • VISTA Gaussian envelope = 1/5 of phase-encoding dimension
    Width of Gaussian envelope for VISTA masks.
  • L+S fetal regularization lambda_L, lambda_S = 0.277, 0.039
    Optimized on fetal training data; affect comparator performance.
  • L+S adult regularization lambda_L, lambda_S = 0.204, 0.057
    Optimized on adult training data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Retrospectively undersampled data simulates actual accelerated acquisition
    The model is trained and evaluated on data that is retrospectively masked from k-t SENSE reconstructions, not on native raw k-space from accelerated acquisition. The fidelity of this simulation is assumed.
  • domain assumption k-t SENSE reconstructions are valid ground truth
    The target images are reconstructed with an 8x accelerated acquisition and k-t SENSE; the model learns to reproduce these reconstructions. Any errors in k-t SENSE are baked into the ground truth.
  • domain assumption Single-coil data is sufficient to validate the method
    The data are single-coil reconstructions, while clinical acquisition is multi-coil; the paper notes this limits the clinical pipeline.
  • domain assumption Fetal heart dynamics are represented in the first 32 frames
    The paper uses the first 32 frames based on preliminary tests, assuming this captures the relevant cardiac cycle.
  • domain assumption Global metrics (NMSE/PSNR/SSIM) reflect reconstruction quality
    The paper uses standard global metrics but acknowledges they can mask missing cardiac dynamics, so visual assessment is also used. The claim of superiority rests partly on visual inspection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DCRA-Net: Attention-Enabled Reconstruction Model for Dynamic Fetal Cardiac MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5XEGXJM

@misc{pith2026241215342,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DCRA-Net: Attention-Enabled Reconstruction Model for Dynamic Fetal Cardiac MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5XEGXJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15342}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic fetal heart magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) presents unique challenges due to the fast heart rate of the fetus compared to adult subjects and uncontrolled fetal motion. This requires high temporal and spatial resolutions over a large field of view, in order to encompass surrounding maternal anatomy. In this work, we introduce Dynamic Cardiac Reconstruction Attention Network (DCRA-Net) - a novel deep learning model that employs attention mechanisms in spatial and temporal domains and temporal frequency representation of data to reconstruct the dynamics of the fetal heart from highly accelerated free-running (non-gated) MRI acquisitions. DCRA-Net was trained on retrospectively undersampled complex-valued cardiac MRIs from 42 fetal subjects and separately from 153 adult subjects, and evaluated on data from 14 fetal and 39 adult subjects respectively. Its performance was compared to L+S and k-GIN methods in both fetal and adult cases for an undersampling factor of 8x. The proposed network performed better than the comparators for both fetal and adult data, for both regular lattice and centrally weighted random undersampling. Aliased signals due to the undersampling were comprehensively resolved, and both the spatial details of the heart and its temporal dynamics were recovered with high fidelity. The highest performance was achieved when using lattice undersampling, data consistency and temporal frequency representation, yielding PSNR of 38 for fetal and 35 for adult cases. Our method is publicly available at https://github.com/denproc/DCRA-Net.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15342 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed DCRA-Net model for dynamic fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction. The main parts of the model are encoder, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of 8x undersampling patterns. representation into feature space and back. The middle part of the model consists of encoder, bottleneck, and decoder. Each encoder and decoder block consists of two ResNet blocks [45], one spatial and one temporal self-attention layer [38], and a down/upsampling layer. The ResNet blocks include two 3D convolutional layers with kernel size of 1 × 3 × 3 to process only spatial d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fetal heart reconstruction comparison shows reconstructed data as image frames (a), temporal (c) and frequency (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adult heart reconstruction comparison shows reconstructed data as image frames (a), temporal (c) and frequency (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of DCRA-Net across temporal repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Low-rank plus sparse matrix decomposition for accelerated dynamic MRI with separation of background and dynamic components,

    R. Otazo, E. Candes, and D. K. Sodickson, “Low-rank plus sparse matrix decomposition for accelerated dynamic MRI with separation of background and dynamic components,” Magnetic resonance in medicine , vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 1125–1136, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [40]

    Global k-Space Interpolation for Dynamic MRI Reconstruction Using Masked Image Modeling,

    J. Pan, S. Shit, Ö. Turgut, W. Huang, H. B. Li, N. Stolt-Ansó, T. Küstner, K. Hammernik, and D. Rueckert, “Global k-Space Interpolation for Dynamic MRI Reconstruction Using Masked Image Modeling,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention, pp. 228–238, Springer, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    What is the “normal

    S. P. V on Steinburg, A.-L. Boulesteix, C. Lederer, S. Grunow, S. Schier- meier, W. Hatzmann, K.-T. M. Schneider, and M. Daumer, “What is the “normal” fetal heart rate?,” PeerJ, vol. 1, p. e82, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI,

    L. Feng, R. Grimm, K. T. Block, H. Chandarana, S. Kim, J. Xu, L. Axel, D. K. Sodickson, and R. Otazo, “Golden-angle radial sparse parallel MRI: combination of compressed sensing, parallel imaging, and golden-angle radial sampling for fast and flexible dynamic volumetric MRI,” Magnetic resonance in medicine , vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 707–717, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [3]

    Self-gated fetal cardiac MRI with tiny golden angle iGRASP: A feasibility study,

    K. Haris, E. Hedström, S. Bidhult, F. Testud, N. Maglaveras, E. Heiberg, S. R. Hansson, H. Arheden, and A. H. Aletras, “Self-gated fetal cardiac MRI with tiny golden angle iGRASP: A feasibility study,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 207–217, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Dynamic imaging of the fetal heart using metric optimized gating,

    C. W. Roy, M. Seed, J. F. Van Amerom, B. Al Nafisi, L. Grosse- Wortmann, S.-J. Yoo, and C. K. Macgowan, “Dynamic imaging of the fetal heart using metric optimized gating,” Magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1598–1607, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    k-t BLAST and k-t SENSE: dynamic MRI with high frame rate exploiting spatiotemporal correlations,

    J. Tsao, P. Boesiger, and K. P. Pruessmann, “k-t BLAST and k-t SENSE: dynamic MRI with high frame rate exploiting spatiotemporal correlations,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1031– 1042, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [6]

    Fetal cardiac cine imaging using highly accelerated dynamic MRI with retrospective motion correction and outlier rejection,

    J. F. van Amerom, D. F. Lloyd, A. N. Price, M. Kuklisova Murgasova, P. Aljabar, S. J. Malik, M. Lohezic, M. A. Rutherford, K. Pushparajah, R. Razavi, et al., “Fetal cardiac cine imaging using highly accelerated dynamic MRI with retrospective motion correction and outlier rejection,” Magnetic resonance in medicine , vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 327–338, 2018. 8

    work page 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Fetal whole-heart 4D imaging using motion-corrected multi-planar real-time MRI,

    J. F. van Amerom, D. F. Lloyd, M. Deprez, A. N. Price, S. J. Malik, K. Pushparajah, M. P. van Poppel, M. A. Rutherford, R. Razavi, and J. V . Hajnal, “Fetal whole-heart 4D imaging using motion-corrected multi-planar real-time MRI,” Magnetic resonance in medicine , vol. 82, no....

    2019

  2. [8]

    Fetal cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging in utero,

    J. Chaptinel, J. Yerly, Y . Mivelaz, M. Prsa, L. Alamo, Y . Vial, G. Berchier, C. Rohner, F. Gudinchet, and M. Stuber, “Fetal cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging in utero,” Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 15540, 2017

    2017

  3. [9]

    Fetal whole heart blood flow imaging using 4D cine MRI,

    T. A. Roberts, J. F. van Amerom, A. Uus, D. F. Lloyd, M. P. van Poppel, A. N. Price, J.-D. Tournier, C. A. Mohanadass, L. H. Jackson, S. J. Malik, et al., “Fetal whole heart blood flow imaging using 4D cine MRI,” Nature communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4992, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, p...

    2015

  5. [11]

    Deep learning recon- struction of dynamic free-breathing fetal heart mri to improve clinical pipeline,

    D. Prokopenko, D. Rueckert, and J. V . Hajnal, “Deep learning recon- struction of dynamic free-breathing fetal heart mri to improve clinical pipeline,” in ISMRM and ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition , 2023

    2023

  6. [12]

    The challenge of fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction using deep learning,

    D. Prokopenko, K. Hammernik, T. Roberts, D. F. Lloyd, D. Rueckert, and J. V . Hajnal, “The challenge of fetal cardiac MRI reconstruction using deep learning,” in International Workshop on Preterm, Perinatal and Paediatric Image Analysis , pp. 64–74, Springer, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    Unaliasing by Fourier-encoding the overlaps using the temporal dimension (UNFOLD), applied to cardiac imaging and fMRI,

    B. Madore, G. H. Glover, and N. J. Pelc, “Unaliasing by Fourier-encoding the overlaps using the temporal dimension (UNFOLD), applied to cardiac imaging and fMRI,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicin...

    1999

  8. [14]

    Dynamic autocalibrated parallel imaging using temporal GRAPPA (TGRAPPA),

    F. A. Breuer, P. Kellman, M. A. Griswold, and P. M. Jakob, “Dynamic autocalibrated parallel imaging using temporal GRAPPA (TGRAPPA),” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 981–985, 2005

    2005

  9. [15]

    Adaptive sensitivity encoding incorporating temporal filtering (TSENSE),

    P. Kellman, F. H. Epstein, and E. R. McVeigh, “Adaptive sensitivity encoding incorporating temporal filtering (TSENSE),” Magnetic Reso- nance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 846–852, 2001

    2001

  10. [16]

    k-t FOCUSS: a general compressed sensing framework for high resolution dynamic MRI,

    H. Jung, K. Sung, K. S. Nayak, E. Y . Kim, and J. C. Ye, “k-t FOCUSS: a general compressed sensing framework for high resolution dynamic MRI,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine , vol. 61, no. 1, ...

    2009

  11. [17]

    k-t PCA: temporally constrained k-t BLAST reconstruction using principal component analysis,

    H. Pedersen, S. Kozerke, S. Ringgaard, K. Nehrke, and W. Y . Kim, “k-t PCA: temporally constrained k-t BLAST reconstruction using principal component analysis,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine ...

    2009

  12. [18]

    Accelerated dynamic MRI exploiting sparsity and low-rank structure: kt SLR,

    S. G. Lingala, Y . Hu, E. DiBella, and M. Jacob, “Accelerated dynamic MRI exploiting sparsity and low-rank structure: kt SLR,” IEEE transac- tions on medical imaging , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1042–1054, 2011

    2011

  13. [20]

    A kernel-based low-rank (KLR) model for low-dimensional manifold recovery in highly accelerated dynamic MRI,

    U. Nakarmi, Y . Wang, J. Lyu, D. Liang, and L. Ying, “A kernel-based low-rank (KLR) model for low-dimensional manifold recovery in highly accelerated dynamic MRI,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 2297–2307, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Fast low rank column-wise compressive sensing for accelerated dynamic MRI,

    S. Babu, S. G. Lingala, and N. Vaswani, “Fast low rank column-wise compressive sensing for accelerated dynamic MRI,” IEEE transactions on computational imaging , vol. 9, pp. 409–424, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    A deep cascade of convolutional neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction,

    J. Schlemper, J. Caballero, J. V . Hajnal, A. N. Price, and D. Rueckert, “A deep cascade of convolutional neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction,” IEEE transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 491–503, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Convolutional recurrent neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction,

    C. Qin, J. Schlemper, J. Caballero, A. N. Price, J. V . Hajnal, and D. Rueckert, “Convolutional recurrent neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 280–290, 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    Cinenet: deep learning-based 3d cardiac cine mri reconstruction with multi-coil complex- valued 4d spatio-temporal convolutions,

    T. Küstner, N. Fuin, K. Hammernik, A. Bustin, H. Qi, R. Hajhosseiny, P. G. Masci, R. Neji, D. Rueckert, R. M. Botnar, et al., “Cinenet: deep learning-based 3d cardiac cine mri reconstruction with multi-coil complex- valued 4d spatio-temporal convolutions,” Scientific reports, ...

    2020

  18. [25]

    Real-time deep artifact suppression using recurrent u-nets for low-latency cardiac mri,

    O. Jaubert, J. Montalt-Tordera, D. Knight, G. J. Coghlan, S. Arridge, J. A. Steeden, and V . Muthurangu, “Real-time deep artifact suppression using recurrent u-nets for low-latency cardiac mri,” Magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 1904–1916, 2021

    1904

  19. [26]

    Deep artifact suppression for spiral real-time phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in congenital heart disease,

    O. Jaubert, J. Steeden, J. Montalt-Tordera, S. Arridge, G. T. Kowalik, and V . Muthurangu, “Deep artifact suppression for spiral real-time phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in congenital heart disease,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging , vol. 83, pp. 125–132, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Highly accelerated free-breathing real-time phase contrast cardiovascular mri via complex-difference deep learning,

    H. Haji-Valizadeh, R. Guo, S. Kucukseymen, A. Paskavitz, X. Cai, J. Rodriguez, P. Pierce, B. Goddu, D. Kim, W. Manning, et al., “Highly accelerated free-breathing real-time phase contrast cardiovascular mri via complex-difference deep learning,” Magnetic resonance in medicine ...

    2021

  21. [28]

    Deep learning- based rapid spiral image reconstruction (desire) for high-resolution spiral first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging,

    J. Wang, D. S. Weller, C. M. Kramer, and M. Salerno, “Deep learning- based rapid spiral image reconstruction (desire) for high-resolution spiral first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging,” NMR in Biomedicine , vol. 35, no. 5, p. e4661, 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    Dynamic mri using model- based deep learning and storm priors: Modl-storm,

    S. Biswas, H. K. Aggarwal, and M. Jacob, “Dynamic mri using model- based deep learning and storm priors: Modl-storm,” Magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 485–494, 2019

    2019

  23. [30]

    A deep learning-based integrated framework for quality-aware undersampled cine cardiac mri reconstruction and analysis,

    I. Machado, E. Puyol-Antón, K. Hammernik, G. Cruz, D. Ugurlu, I. Olakorede, I. Oksuz, B. Ruijsink, M. Castelo-Branco, A. Young, et al., “A deep learning-based integrated framework for quality-aware undersampled cine cardiac mri reconstruction and analysis,” IEEE Transactions o...

    2023

  24. [31]

    k-t NEXT: dynamic MR image reconstruction exploiting spatio-temporal correlations,

    C. Qin, J. Schlemper, J. Duan, G. Seegoolam, A. Price, J. Hajnal, and D. Rueckert, “k-t NEXT: dynamic MR image reconstruction exploiting spatio-temporal correlations,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, She...

    2019

  25. [32]

    Deep low-Rank plus sparse network for dynamic MR imaging,

    W. Huang, Z. Ke, Z.-X. Cui, J. Cheng, Z. Qiu, S. Jia, L. Ying, Y . Zhu, and D. Liang, “Deep low-Rank plus sparse network for dynamic MR imaging,” Medical Image Analysis , vol. 73, p. 102190, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Learned low-rank priors in dynamic MR imaging,

    Z. Ke, W. Huang, Z.-X. Cui, J. Cheng, S. Jia, H. Wang, X. Liu, H. Zheng, L. Ying, Y . Zhu,et al., “Learned low-rank priors in dynamic MR imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3698–3710, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Complementary time-frequency domain networks for dynamic parallel MR image reconstruction,

    C. Qin, J. Duan, K. Hammernik, J. Schlemper, T. Küstner, R. Botnar, C. Prieto, A. N. Price, J. V . Hajnal, and D. Rueckert, “Complementary time-frequency domain networks for dynamic parallel MR image reconstruction,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 3274– 3291, 2021

    2021

  28. [35]

    Exploiting motion for deep learning reconstruction of extremely- undersampled dynamic MRI,

    G. Seegoolam, J. Schlemper, C. Qin, A. Price, J. Hajnal, and D. Rueckert, “Exploiting motion for deep learning reconstruction of extremely- undersampled dynamic MRI,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention , pp. 704–712, Sprin...

    2019

  29. [36]

    End-to-end deep learning of non-rigid groupwise registration and reconstruction of dynamic MRI,

    J. Yang, T. Küstner, P. Hu, P. Liò, and H. Qi, “End-to-end deep learning of non-rigid groupwise registration and reconstruction of dynamic MRI,” Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine , vol. 9, p. 880186, 2022

    2022

  30. [37]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, et al., “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  32. [39]

    Learning Dynamic MRI Reconstruction with Convolutional Network Assisted Reconstruction Swin Transformer,

    D. Xu, H. Liu, D. Ruan, and K. Sheng, “Learning Dynamic MRI Reconstruction with Convolutional Network Assisted Reconstruction Swin Transformer,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 3–13, Springer, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    3D U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annota- tion,

    Ö. Çiçek, A. Abdulkadir, S. S. Lienkamp, T. Brox, and O. Ronneberger, “3D U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annota- tion,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, October...

    2016

  34. [42]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020. DENIS PROKOPENKO et al.: DCRA-NET: ATTENTION-ENABLED RECONSTRUCTION MODEL FOR DYNAMIC FETAL CARDIAC MRI 9

    2020

  35. [43]

    Video diffusion models,

    J. Ho, T. Salimans, A. Gritsenko, W. Chan, M. Norouzi, and D. J. Fleet, “Video diffusion models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 8633–8646, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Vivit: A video vision transformer,

    A. Arnab, M. Dehghani, G. Heigold, C. Sun, M. Lu ˇci´c, and C. Schmid, “Vivit: A video vision transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pp. 6836–6846, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 770–778, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Steady-state free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance,

    H. Carr, “Steady-state free precession in nuclear magnetic resonance,” Physical Review, vol. 112, no. 5, p. 1693, 1958

    1958

  39. [47]

    Optimizing spatiotemporal sampling for k-t BLAST and k-t SENSE: application to high-resolution real-time cardiac steady-state free precession,

    J. Tsao, S. Kozerke, P. Boesiger, and K. P. Pruessmann, “Optimizing spatiotemporal sampling for k-t BLAST and k-t SENSE: application to high-resolution real-time cardiac steady-state free precession,” Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Soc...

    2005

  40. [48]

    Variable density incoherent spatiotemporal acquisition (VISTA) for highly accelerated cardiac MRI,

    R. Ahmad, H. Xue, S. Giri, Y . Ding, J. Craft, and O. P. Simonetti, “Variable density incoherent spatiotemporal acquisition (VISTA) for highly accelerated cardiac MRI,” Magnetic resonance in medicine, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 1266–1278, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    PyTorch Image Quality: Metrics and measure for image quality assessment,

    S. Kastryulin, D. Zakirov, and D. Prokopenko, “PyTorch Image Quality: Metrics and measure for image quality assessment,” Open-source software available at https://github. com/photosynthesisteam/piq , 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    PyTorch image quality: metrics for image quality assessment,

    S. Kastryulin, J. Zakirov, D. Prokopenko, and D. V . Dylov, “PyTorch image quality: metrics for image quality assessment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14818, 2022

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.