A Multimodal Deep Network for the Reconstruction of T2W MR Images

Antonio Falvo; Aurelio Uncini; Danilo Comminiello; Michele Scarpiniti; Simone Scardapane

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 19 references

A Multimodal Deep Network for the Reconstruction of T2W MR Images

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multimodal Dense U-Net reconstructs fourfold-undersampled T2-weighted MR images with SSIM 0.94, using the patient's FLAIR image to preserve brain-lesion detail.

desk verdict Plausible multimodal T2/FLAIR reconstruction idea, but the central SSIM claim is not yet backed by a described test protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03009 v2 pith:MTL64Q6W submitted 2019-08-08 eess.SP cs.LGcs.NE

Antonio Falvo , Danilo Comminiello , Simone Scardapane , Michele Scarpiniti , Aurelio Uncini This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.LGcs.NE

keywords magneticresonanceimagingfastMRImultiplesclerosisdeepneuralnetworkmultimodalimagereconstructionk-spacesubsamplingDenseU-Netstructuralsimilarityindex

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

The paper tries to establish that T2-weighted magnetic resonance images can be acquired four times faster than usual and still be reconstructed with high quality, by giving a deep network both the subsampled T2 image and the patient's fully sampled FLAIR image. The multimodal design exploits the strong correlation between these two contrasts, which are routinely acquired together when diagnosing multiple sclerosis. The proposed Multimodal Dense U-Net is reported to reach a structural similarity index of 0.94 on reconstructed T2 images at fourfold subsampling, compared with 0.86 for a single-input Dense U-Net using the same custom mask. The paper concludes that this makes fourfold-accelerated MR analysis practical while preserving image quality and lesion detail.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Multimodal Dense U-Net paired with a custom static k-space subsampling mask. The mask, applied at acceleration factor four along the phase-encoding direction, places 80 percent of the sampled lines in the central low-frequency region of k-space and the remaining lines equidistantly to retain high-frequency edge information. The network has two input branches, one for the subsampled T2 image and one for the FLAIR image, each undergoing convolutional contraction before their feature maps are merged and processed by dense blocks built from batch normalization, ELU activations, and 3x3 convolutions, followed by deconvolutive expansion and a final dense block with a 1x1 convolution that outputs the reconstructed T2 image. Training minimizes the sum of mean squared error and structural dissimilarity, so the optimization target directly combines pixel accuracy with perceptual similarity.

What would settle it

Retrain or re-run the network with an explicit train/validation/test split that holds out entire patients, recompute SSIM and MSE on the held-out images, and compare against the unimodal Dense U-Net; if the held-out SSIM falls to 0.86 or below, or if deliberately misaligned FLAIR inputs erase the gain, the claimed multimodal advantage is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that FLAIR images carry enough structural and lesion information correlated with T2-weighted images to drive high-quality reconstruction of fourfold-subsampled T2 data. A network that processes the subsampled T2 image and the FLAIR image in separate branches, merges their features, and follows the U-Net encoding-decoding layout with dense blocks achieves SSIM 0.94, against 0.86 for the unimodal Dense U-Net. A supporting discovery is that the k-space sampling pattern matters: a custom mask that takes 80 percent of its samples from the low-frequency center of k-space and spreads the remaining 20 percent equidistantly along the phase-encoding direction outperforms a center-only mask, with SSIM 0.86 versus 0.71. The paper presents this as the first attempt to reconstruct T2-weighted images from subsampled T2 and FLAIR images with particular attention to the lesion region.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands on the reported 0.94 SSIM having been computed on images the network never saw during training, and on the FLAIR and T2 slices being spatially aligned, yet the paper documents neither a train/test split nor a registration check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported result is correct, T2-weighted MRI acquisition can be accelerated fourfold while retaining structural similarity of 0.94, reducing scan time and motion-artifact exposure for patients with multiple sclerosis.
The 80/20 center-to-periphery sampling split implies that keeping some high-frequency k-space lines, rather than sampling only the low-frequency center, is what preserves edges and lesion boundaries.
The gain from 0.86 to 0.94 SSIM over the unimodal Dense U-Net implies that FLAIR images, already acquired in MS protocols, can be reused as free side information to improve reconstruction without additional scan time.
Because the loss includes structural dissimilarity and the reported gains appear in the lesion area, the method is aimed at preserving diagnostically relevant detail rather than merely improving pixel statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not pursue is applying the same two-branch fusion to other correlated MRI contrast pairs, such as T1-to-T2 or PD-to-FLAIR, where one contrast could be acquired faster and the other used as guidance.
The paper never defines a train/validation/test split, so the decisive test for its central claim is whether the 0.94 SSIM survives on held-out patients; if it does not, the reported number would reflect memorization rather than reconstruction ability.
The FLAIR-to-T2 spatial alignment is assumed after reslicing but never quantified, so a practical deployment would need a registration step or a network made robust to misalignment before the multimodal gain could be trusted in the clinic.
A clinically stronger evaluation would supplement image-similarity metrics with lesion-segmentation scores, for example comparing automated lesion masks on reconstructed and fully sampled images, since whole-image SSIM can be dominated by non-lesion tissue.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: the multimodal T2+FLAIR reconstruction idea is sensible, but the central quantitative claim is not yet supported. The evaluation section never defines a train/test split, and the reported SSIM values are for single images without error bars. The stress-test note is on target.

What is new: the specific combination of a two-branch U-Net taking subsampled T2 and fully sampled FLAIR to reconstruct T2 for MS imaging, together with a simple k-space mask that keeps 80% of samples in the center and spreads the rest equidistantly. That is a modest but legitimate variation on existing multi-contrast reconstruction. The paper is clearly written and the architecture is easy to reimplement.

What works: the motivation is clinically sensible—FLAIR is typically acquired anyway in MS protocols, so using it as a free side-information channel is a practical idea. The mask rationale (contrast from the center, a bit of high frequency from the periphery) is reasonable. The authors are honest that the dynamic mask approach has generalization problems; the static choice is defensible.

Where it falls short: the experimental reporting. Section 4.1 says 'for each patient we provide the network with 150 FLAIR and T2WIsub images using the T2WIs as target'—that sounds like training, with no mention of validation or test. Figures 3 and 4 give MSE/SSIM on single slices without stating whether those slices were held out. If they were not, the 0.94 SSIM could measure memorization of patient anatomy, not generalization. There are no error bars, no per-patient statistics, no number of test images, and no comparison with standard compressed-sensing baselines or with other multi-contrast deep models. The loss curve in Figure 5 appears to be training loss and carries no information about generalization. One architecture detail is also confusing: the paper says dense blocks have 'zero growth rate,' which would make them degenerate; likely a typo but needs fixing.

Proportion: this is not a fatal conceptual flaw—the architecture is plausible and the idea is worth testing properly. It is an empirical-evidence gap. The authors can close it by describing a proper split and reporting test-set statistics across patients.

Who is it for: researchers in fast MRI or multi-contrast imaging who want a simple baseline idea. It deserves peer review, but with a clear request for major revision on the evaluation. I would not cite it as-is.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multimodal deep network, termed Multimodal Dense U-Net, to reconstruct T2-weighted MR images that have been subsampled in k-space by a factor of 4. The network takes as input a subsampled T2 image and a FLAIR image, exploiting the anatomical correlation between the two modalities. The authors also introduce a custom k-space sampling mask that keeps 80% of samples from the center of k-space and distributes the rest equidistantly. The loss is a combination of MSE and DSSIM. Experiments on a public dataset of 30 multiple sclerosis patients are reported, with the main claim being that the proposed architecture achieves 0.94 SSIM versus 0.86 for a unimodal Dense U-Net baseline, and that the custom mask outperforms a center-only mask. The paper concludes that fourfold acceleration is feasible while preserving reconstruction quality in lesion areas.

Significance. If the reported results are properly validated, the contribution is potentially useful for fast MRI in multiple sclerosis imaging: exploiting FLAIR-T2 correlation is a sensible direction, the custom mask has a clear rationale, and the proposed architecture is simple and reproducible. The paper uses a public dataset and reports a concrete acceleration factor. However, the significance depends entirely on whether the quantitative claims are computed on held-out data; the current manuscript does not provide that evidence. The comparison is also based on very few images with no statistical support, and the loss curve shown is only a training loss. With proper test-set evaluation, the method could be a modest but valid empirical contribution; without it, the central claim is unsupported.

major comments (5)

[Section 4.1, Figures 3 and 4] The paper never defines a train/validation/test split or a patient-level separation. Section 4.1 states only that "for each patient we provide the network with 150 FLAIR and T2WIsub images using the T2WIs as target," and the MSE/SSIM values in Figures 3 and 4 are reported for single predicted images with no statement that those images were held out from training. If the displayed and scored slices belong to the training set, the central 0.94 versus 0.86 SSIM comparison would measure memorization of patient anatomy rather than reconstruction ability. The authors must specify the exact number of test slices, perform a patient-level split, and report aggregate metrics (mean and standard deviation) computed on data never used for training.
[Section 4.3, Figure 4] The quantitative evaluation of the proposed architecture rests on a single displayed image and the text's assertion that "the degree of similarity with respect to the target is 94% rather than 86% of the Dense U-Net." No error bars, number of evaluated images, or per-patient statistics are provided. Two single-image SSIM values do not establish that the multimodal network robustly outperforms the unimodal baseline; the authors need to report distributions over a held-out test set and, if possible, a paired statistical test.
[Figure 5] The loss curve shown in Figure 5 is the training loss only. No validation loss is plotted, and the early stopping mentioned in Section 4.1 is not tied to any validation criterion or performance metric. A training loss curve provides no evidence about generalization and therefore cannot support the reconstruction-quality claim made in the paper.
[Section 2.2] The proposed custom mask fixes the central fraction at 80% of the samples and the subsampling factor at 4, but the paper does not describe how these parameters were selected or whether they were chosen before inspecting the evaluation cases. If the mask parameters were tuned on the same images later scored in Figures 3 and 4, the reported improvement over the center mask is subject to selection bias. The authors should state whether the mask was fixed a priori and, ideally, validate the mask choice on an independent set.
[Section 4.3] The proposed architecture is called a Dense U-Net even though the growth rate of its dense blocks is set to zero, which removes the defining growth mechanism of dense blocks. In addition, the unimodal Dense U-Net baseline is not fully specified: the reader is not told whether it uses the same loss, growth rate, number of feature maps, training schedule, or preprocessing. Without these details, the 0.94 versus 0.86 comparison cannot be attributed to the multimodal design rather than to differences in architecture or training setup.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] There is a typo in the introduction: "caused by to slow movements" should read "caused by slow movements."
[Figure 4] Figure 4 has no axis labels and the caption does not state which image is the target, which is the unimodal prediction, and which is the multimodal prediction; the SSIM values are only mentioned in the body text.
[Equation (4)] The typesetting of Eq. (4) is ambiguous: the DSSIM expression should be clearly parenthesized as (1 - SSIM)/2, with the denominator unambiguously separated from the leading 1/2 term.
[Section 4.1] The preprocessing description says voxel sizes were made isotropic to 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 mm^3, but it does not state whether FLAIR and T2 slices were co-registered or whether their spatial alignment was verified after reslicing; the multimodal approach assumes voxelwise correspondence between the two inputs.
[References] Reference 18 has a garbled author name ("ˇZiga, L.") and Reference 19 contains a typo ("deep leaning" instead of "deep learning"); the reference list should be checked for formatting and completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the multimodal reconstruction is a standard supervised fit, and no reported result reduces to the training objective or to a self-citation by construction.

full rationale

The paper's chain is empirical rather than derivational: it defines a target Y_T2, a subsampled input Y_T2sub = M·Y_T2 (Eq. 1), trains a Multimodal Dense U-Net to minimize MSE + DSSIM (Eq. 2), and reports SSIM/MSE on reconstructed images. There is no fitted parameter later renamed as a prediction, no 'uniqueness theorem' imported from the authors' prior work, and no self-citation used as load-bearing evidence; all architectural components (U-Net, dense blocks, ELU, Adam) are cited to external sources. The custom subsampling mask is a fixed design choice, not a parameter fitted to the reported images. The only validity concern is that Section 4.1 describes the training data ('for each patient we provide the network with 150 FLAIR and T2WIsub images using the T2WIs as target') without defining a train/validation/test split, so the 0.94 SSIM figure in Section 4.3 cannot be confirmed from the text to be out-of-sample. That is a reporting gap, not a circularity: the paper does not state that the scored slices were training slices, and no equation makes the reported SSIM equal to the training loss by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Fourier-based MRI modeling, on an unstated FLAIR-T2 alignment assumption, and on several hand-picked hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential ledger entries are the undisclosed train/test split (axiom 4) and the 0.8 center fraction chosen by hand.

free parameters (6)

Center fraction of custom k-space mask = 0.8
Hand-selected in Section 2.2; the paper's main contribution. No sensitivity analysis is reported.
Subsampling factor = 4
Sets the claimed acceleration; only this factor is tested (Section 4.1).
Dense block growth rate = 0
Set to zero to avoid internal expansion (Section 4.1); the authors note this changes the dense-block concept, and no ablation justifies it.
Dense block depth and feature maps = 5 levels, 64 maps
Chosen without reported tuning or ablation (Section 4.1).
Training schedule = 80 epochs, batch size 4, Adam, early stopping
Reported in Section 4.1; early-stopping criterion and validation set are not specified.
Loss weighting = Equal weights for MSE and DSSIM
The loss in Equation (2) is the sum with no weighting factors; no ablation for this choice is presented.

assumptions (4)

standard math Inverse Fourier transform maps subsampled k-space to a degraded image domain (Eq. (1)).
Standard MRI signal model inherited from Refs. [4,10]; not re-derived.
domain assumption FLAIR and T2 images are spatially co-registered after preprocessing.
Multimodal fusion assumes corresponding pixels; Section 4.1 reslices data but does not describe registration.
domain assumption FLAIR images are informative for T2 reconstruction in the lesion region.
Introduction asserts FLAIR is highly correlated with T2, but the paper provides no quantitative demonstration of correlation.
domain assumption The public dataset [18] contains paired T2 and FLAIR slices that can be split into independent train/test patients.
The paper never specifies the split; without it, metric validity is unverified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multimodal Deep Network for the Reconstruction of T2W MR Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTL64Q6W

@misc{pith2026190803009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multimodal Deep Network for the Reconstruction of T2W MR Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTL64Q6W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03009}
}

read the original abstract

Multiple sclerosis is one of the most common chronic neurological diseases affecting the central nervous system. Lesions produced by the MS can be observed through two modalities of magnetic resonance (MR), known as T2W and FLAIR sequences, both providing useful information for formulating a diagnosis. However, long acquisition time makes the acquired MR image vulnerable to motion artifacts. This leads to the need of accelerating the execution of the MR analysis. In this paper, we present a deep learning method that is able to reconstruct subsampled MR images obtained by reducing the k-space data, while maintaining a high image quality that can be used to observe brain lesions. The proposed method exploits the multimodal approach of neural networks and it also focuses on the data acquisition and processing stages to reduce execution time of the MR analysis. Results prove the effectiveness of the proposed method in reconstructing subsampled MR images while saving execution time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03009 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Subsampling masks: a) center mask and b) the proposed custom mask. the direction of the phase coding of the k-space, in which it is possible, once the subsampling factor is set, to choose the percentage of samples that will occupy the central part of k-space, thus leaving the rest of the samples equidistant from each other [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Scheme of the proposed Multimodal Dense U-Net architecture. Deconvolutive layers act inversely with respect to pooling and aim to increase the spatial dimensions of the inputs. This allows to obtain images of a size comparable to those of the input images from the network. In the simplest case these levels can be implemented as static oversampling with bilinear interpolation. The dense block, proposed in [5], allow… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Predicted images using: a) center mask and b) the proposed custom mask. The proposed Multimodal Dense U-Net has been implemented on Keras. In the training stage, for each patient we provide the network with 150 FLAIR and T2WIsub images using the T2WIs as target. For dense blocks, we set a zero growth rate and a number of levels equal to 5 with feature maps size of 64 and ELU activation levels. We use Adam as an opti… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Predicted T2WI reconstructed by the proposed Multimodal Dense U-Net. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Iteration 10−1 100 Loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Loss function behavior. 4.3 Evaluation of the Proposed Deep Architecture Conceptually, the proposed architecture and the standard Dense U-Net might appear similar, but the former one manages the two inputs differently. Moreover, the hyper-parameters of the dense blocks…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Pergamon Books Inc., Elmsford, NY (1984)

Beall, P.T., Amtey, S.R., Kasturi, S.R.: NMR Data Handbook for Biomedical Ap- plications. Pergamon Books Inc., Elmsford, NY (1984)

work page 1984
[2]

In: International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (ICLR)

Clevert, D.A., Unterthiner, T., Hochreiter, S.: Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs). In: International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (ICLR). pp. 1–14. San Juan, Puerto Rico (May 2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine 59(2), 365–373 (Feb 2008)

Gamper, U., Boesiger, P., Kozerke, S.: Compressed sensing in dynamic MRI. Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine 59(2), 365–373 (Feb 2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Haacke, E.M., Brown, R.W., Thompson, M.R., Venkatesan, R.: Magnetic Reso- nance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design, vol. 82. Wiley-Liss, New York, NY (1999)

work page 1999
[5]

In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Huang, G., Liu, Z., van der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 2261–2269. Honolulu, HI (Jul 2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32(10), 1344–1352 (Dec 2014)

Huang, J., Chen, C., Axel, L.: Fast multi-contrast MRI reconstruction. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32(10), 1344–1352 (Dec 2014)

work page 2014
[7]

The British Journal of Radiology 88(1056) (Dec 2015)

Jaspan, O.N., Fleysher, R., Lipton, M.L.: Compressed sensing MRI: A review of the clinical literature. The British Journal of Radiology 88(1056) (Dec 2015)

work page 2015
[8]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4509–4522 (Sep 2017)

Jin, K.H., McCann, M.T., Froustey, E., Unser, M.: Deep convolutional neural net- work for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4509–4522 (Sep 2017)

work page 2017

Show all 19 references

[9]

Medical Physics 45(7), 3120–3131 (Jul 2018)

Kim, K.H., Do, W.J., Park, S.H.: Improving resolution of MR images with an adversarial network incorporating images with diﬀerent contrast. Medical Physics 45(7), 3120–3131 (Jul 2018)

2018
[10]

A Signal Processing Perspective

Liang, Z.P., Lauterbur, P.C.: Principles of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. A Signal Processing Perspective. The Institute of electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY (2000)

2000
[11]

Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 58, 1182–1195 (Oct 2007)

Lustig, M., Donoho, D., Pauly, J.M.: Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 58, 1182–1195 (Oct 2007)

2007
[12]

IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25(2), 72–82 (Mar 2008) Multimodal Deep Network 9

Lustig, M., Donoho, D.L., Santos, J.M., Pauly, J.M.: Compressed sensing MRI. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25(2), 72–82 (Mar 2008) Multimodal Deep Network 9

2008
[13]

IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(6), 85–95 (Nov 2017)

McCann, M.T., Jin, K.H., Unser, M.: Convolutional neural networks for inverse problems in imaging: A review. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34(6), 85–95 (Nov 2017)

2017
[14]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38(1), 280–290 (Jan 2019)

Qin, C., Schlemper, J., Caballero, J., Price, A.N., Hajnal, J.V., Rueckert, D.: Con- volutional recurrent neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 38(1), 280–290 (Jan 2019)

2019
[15]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)

Ronnenberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9351, pp. 234–241. Springer, C...

2015
[16]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09172v1 (Mar 2018)

Roy, S., Butman, J.A., Reich, D.S., Calabresi, P.A., Pham, D.L.: Multiple sclerosis lesion segmentation from brain MRI via fully convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09172v1 (Mar 2018)

2018 arXiv
[17]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 37(2), 491–503 (Feb 2018)

Schlemper, J., Caballero, J., Hajnal, J.V., Price, A.N., Rueckert, D.: A deep cas- cade of convolutional neural networks for dynamic MR image reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 37(2), 491–503 (Feb 2018)

2018
[18]

Neuroinformatics 16(1), 51–63 (Jan 2018)

ˇZiga, L., Galimzianova, A., Koren, A., Lukin, M., Pernuˇ s, F., Likar, B., ˇSpiclin, v.: A novel public MR image dataset of multiple sclerosis patients with lesion segmentations based on multi-rater consensus. Neuroinformatics 16(1), 51–63 (Jan 2018)

2018
[19]

IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (Early Access) (2018)

Xiang, L., Chen, Y., Chang, W., Zhan, Y., Lin, W., Wang, Q., Shen, D.: Deep leaning based multi-modal fusion for fast MR reconstruction. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering (Early Access) (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Pergamon Books Inc., Elmsford, NY (1984)

Beall, P.T., Amtey, S.R., Kasturi, S.R.: NMR Data Handbook for Biomedical Ap- plications. Pergamon Books Inc., Elmsford, NY (1984)

work page 1984

[2] [2]

In: International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (ICLR)

Clevert, D.A., Unterthiner, T., Hochreiter, S.: Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (ELUs). In: International Conference on Learn- ing Representations (ICLR). pp. 1–14. San Juan, Puerto Rico (May 2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine 59(2), 365–373 (Feb 2008)

Gamper, U., Boesiger, P., Kozerke, S.: Compressed sensing in dynamic MRI. Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine 59(2), 365–373 (Feb 2008)

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Haacke, E.M., Brown, R.W., Thompson, M.R., Venkatesan, R.: Magnetic Reso- nance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design, vol. 82. Wiley-Liss, New York, NY (1999)

work page 1999

[5] [5]

In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Huang, G., Liu, Z., van der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 2261–2269. Honolulu, HI (Jul 2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32(10), 1344–1352 (Dec 2014)

Huang, J., Chen, C., Axel, L.: Fast multi-contrast MRI reconstruction. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32(10), 1344–1352 (Dec 2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

The British Journal of Radiology 88(1056) (Dec 2015)

Jaspan, O.N., Fleysher, R., Lipton, M.L.: Compressed sensing MRI: A review of the clinical literature. The British Journal of Radiology 88(1056) (Dec 2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4509–4522 (Sep 2017)

Jin, K.H., McCann, M.T., Froustey, E., Unser, M.: Deep convolutional neural net- work for inverse problems in imaging. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 26(9), 4509–4522 (Sep 2017)

work page 2017