CG-SENSE revisited: Results from the first ISMRM reproducibility challenge.

While the description level of the published algorithm enabled participants to reproduce CG-SENSE in general, details of the implementation varied, for example, density compensation or Tikhonov regularization. Implicit assumptions about the data lead to further differences, emphasizing the importance of sufficient metadata accompanying open datasets. Defining reproducibility quantitatively turned out to be nontrivial for this image reconstruction challenge, in the absence of ground-truth results. Typical similarity measures like NMSE of SSIM were misled by image intensity scaling and outlier pixels. Thus, to facilitate reproducibility, researchers are encouraged to publish code and data alongside the original paper. Future methodological papers on MR image reconstruction might benefit from the consolidated reference implementations of CG-SENSE presented here, as a benchmark for methods comparison.