Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25751272›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Repeatability of quantitative sodium magnetic resonance imaging for estimating pseudo-intracellular sodium concentration and pseudo-extracellular volume fraction in brain at 3 T.

Guillaume Madelin, James Babb, Ding Xia, Ravinder R Regatte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Repeatability of SimultaneousNMR in biomedicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. VirtMRI: A Tool for Teaching MRI.Journal of medical systems · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guillaume MadelinCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
James BabbCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ding XiaCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ravinder R RegatteCenter for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Project-005UL1TR001445 · NCATS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BREDELLA, MIRIAM ANTOINETTE, HOCHMAN, JUDITH S · 2015 to 2025
$103.5M
PSYCHOSOCIAL COREP30AG008051 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SHAO, YONGZHAO · 1990 to 2019
$36.1M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000038 · NCATS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CRONSTEIN, BRUCE NEIL · 2012 to 2014
$16.8M
Sodium MRI for Assessment of Early OA.R01AR060238 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI REGATTE, RAVINDER · 2011 to 2015
$2.9M
Sodium MRI of the HipR03AR065763 · NIAMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MADELIN, GUILLAUME · 2014 to 2015
$170k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000038NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001445NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR060238NIAMS NIH HHS R03 AR065763NIA NIH HHS P30 AG008051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the repeatability of the quantification of pseudo-intracellular sodium concentration (C1) and pseudo-extracellular volume fraction (α) estimated in brain in vivo using sodium magnetic resonance (MRI) at 3 T. Eleven healthy subjects were scanned twice, with two sodium MRI acquisitions (with and without fluid suppression by inversion recovery), and two double inversion recovery (DIR) proton MRI. DIR MRIs were used to create masks of gray and white matter (GM, WM), that were subsequently applied to the C1 and α maps calculated from sodium MRI and a tissue three-compartment model, in order to measure the distributions of these two parameters in GM, WM or full brain (GM+WM) separately. The mean, median, mode, standard deviation (std), skewness and kurtosis of the C1 and α distributions in whole GM, WM and full brain were calculated for each subject, averaged over all data, and used as parameters for the repeatability assessment. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated as a measure of reliability for the detection of intra-subject changes in C1 and αfor each parameter, while intraclass correlation (ICC) was used as a measure of repeatability. It was found that the CV of most of the parameters was around 10-20% (except for C1 kurtosis which is about 40%) for C1 and α measurements, and that ICC was moderate to very good (0.4 to 0.9) for C1 parameters and for some of the α parameters (mainly skewness and kurtosis). In conclusion, the proposed method could allow to reliably detect changes of 50% and above of the different measurement parameters of C1 and αin neuropathologies (multiple sclerosis, tumor, stroke, Alzheimer's disease) compared to healthy subjects, and that skewness and kurtosis of the distributions of C1 and αseem to be the more sensitive parameters to these changes.

Indexed as

AdultBrainExtracellular SpaceFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIntracellular SpaceMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleReproducibility of ResultsSodiumSodium

Identifiers

PMID25751272
PMCPMC4353709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.