ArticlePloS one2015
Increasing the Spatial Resolution of 3T Carotid MRI Has No Beneficial Effect for Plaque Component Measurement Reproducibility.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of Tumor-Specific MRI Biomarkers Using Machine Learning (ML).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Manual versus Automated Carotid Artery Plaque Component Segmentation in High and Lower Quality 3.0 Tesla MRI Scans.PloS one · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDifferent in-plane resolutions have been used for carotid 3T MRI. We compared the reproducibility, as well as the within- and between reader variability of high and routinely used spatial resolution in scans of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery disease. Since no consensus exists about the optimal segmentation method, we analysed all imaging data using two different segmentation methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 31 patient with carotid atherosclerosis a high (0.25 × 0.25 mm2; HR) and routinely used (0.50 × 0.50 mm2; LR) spatial resolution carotid MRI scan were performed within one month. A fully blinded closed and a simultaneously open segmentation were used to quantify the lipid rich necrotic core (LRNC), calcified and loose matrix (LM) plaque area and the fibrous cap (FC) thickness.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between scan-rescan reproducibility for HR versus LR measurements, nor did we find any significant difference between the within-reader and between-reader reproducibility. The same applies for differences between the open and closed reads. All intraclass correlation coefficients between scans and rescans for the LRNC, calcified and LM plaque area, as well as the FC thickness measurements with the open segmentation method were excellent (all above 0.75).
conclusionsIncreasing the spatial resolution at the expense of the contrast-to-noise ratio does not improve carotid plaque component scan-rescan reproducibility in patients with atherosclerotic carotid disease, nor does using a different segmentation method.
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.