ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2013
Animal models and high field imaging and spectroscopy.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regional sex differences in neurochemical profiles of healthy mice measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 9.4 tesla.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Simulation Study of Radio Frequency Safety and the Optimal Size of a Single-Channel Surface Radio Frequency Coil for Mice at 9.4 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cerebellar morphometric and spectroscopic biomarkers for Machado-Joseph Disease.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2022Article
- Increases in BrainFrontiers in physiology · 2017Article
- Fat-water MRI of a diet-induced obesity mouse model at 15.2T.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2016Article
- Lysosomal storage disease: gene therapy on both sides of the blood-brain barrier.Molecular genetics and metabolism · 2015Review
- Longitudinal cerebral metabolic changes in pig-tailed macaques infected with the neurovirulent virus SIVsmmFGb.Journal of neurovirology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A plethora of magnetic resonance (MR) techniques developed in the last two decades provide unique and noninvasive measurement capabilities for studies of basic brain function and brain diseases in humans. Animal model experiments have been an indispensible part of this development. MR imaging and spectroscopy measurements have been employed in animal models, either by themselves or in combination with complementary and often invasive techniques, to enlighten us about the information content of such MR methods and/or verify observations made in the human brain. They have also been employed, with or independently of human efforts, to examine mechanisms underlying pathological developments in the brain, exploiting the wealth of animal models available for such studies. In this endeavor, the desire to push for ever-higher spatial and/or spectral resolution, better signal-to-noise ratio, and unique image contrast has inevitably led to the introduction of increasingly higher magnetic fields. As a result, today, animal model studies are starting to be conducted at magnetic fields ranging from ~ 11 to 17 Tesla, significantly enhancing the armamentarium of tools available for the probing brain function and brain pathologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24174899PMC3811099What 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.