ArticleEuropean radiology2012
Development and validation of an intrinsic landmark-based gating protocol applicable for functional and molecular ultrasound imaging.
Article in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury using CEUS in mice.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Improvement of the accuracy of liver lesion DCEUS quantification with the use of automatic respiratory gating.European radiology · 2016Article
- Ultrasound for molecular imaging and therapy in cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo implement a retrospective intrinsic landmark-based (ILB) gating protocol for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and to compare its efficiency to non-gated, manually gated and extrinsically gated CEUS.
methodsCEUS of the liver was performed in healthy mice (n = 5) and in NEMO knockout mice with dysplastic livers (n = 5). In healthy animals, first-pass kinetics of non-specific microbubbles was recorded. Knockout mice were analysed regarding retention of VEGFR2-specific microbubbles. For retrospective gating, a landmark which showed respiratory movement was encircled as a region of interest (ROI). During inspiration, the signal intensity within the ROI altered, which served as gating signal. To evaluate the accuracy, non-gated, extrinsically gated and ILB-gated time-intensity curves were created. For each curve, descriptive parameters were calculated and compared to the gold standard (manual frame-by-frame gating).
resultsNo significant differences in the variation of ILB- and extrinsically gated time-intensity curves from the gold standard were observed. Non-gated data showed significantly higher variations. Also the variation of molecular ultrasound data was significantly lower for ILB-gated compared to non-gated data.
conclusionILB gating is a robust and easy method to improve data accuracy in functional and molecular ultrasound liver imaging. This technique can presumably be translated to contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations in humans. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis of the uptake of contrast agents during ultrasound is complex. • Intrinsic landmark-based gating (ILB) offers a simple implementable method for motion correction. • Results using ILB-gating are comparable to extrinsic gating using external biomonitoring devices. • Functional and molecular imaging of mobile organs will benefit from ILB gating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.