ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016
Impact of incorporating visual biofeedback in 4D MRI.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD) for Low-Latency Real-Time Cardiac MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Enabling in vivo comparisons of different four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging sequences for radiotherapy guidance using visual biofeedback.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Effects of age-related breathing characteristics on the performance of four-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging reconstructed by prospective gating for radiation therapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019Article
- Respiratory-Correlated (RC) vs. Time-Resolved (TR) Four-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (4DMRI) for Radiotherapy of Thoracic and Abdominal Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise radiation therapy (RT) for abdominal lesions is complicated by respiratory motion and suboptimal soft tissue contrast in 4D CT. 4D MRI offers improved con-trast although long scan times and irregular breathing patterns can be limiting. To address this, visual biofeedback (VBF) was introduced into 4D MRI. Ten volunteers were consented to an IRB-approved protocol. Prospective respiratory-triggered, T2-weighted, coronal 4D MRIs were acquired on an open 1.0T MR-SIM. VBF was integrated using an MR-compatible interactive breath-hold control system. Subjects visually monitored their breathing patterns to stay within predetermined tolerances. 4D MRIs were acquired with and without VBF for 2- and 8-phase acquisitions. Normalized respiratory waveforms were evaluated for scan time, duty cycle (programmed/acquisition time), breathing period, and breathing regularity (end-inhale coefficient of variation, EI-COV). Three reviewers performed image quality assessment to compare artifacts with and without VBF. Respiration-induced liver motion was calculated via centroid difference analysis of end-exhale (EE) and EI liver contours. Incorporating VBF reduced 2-phase acquisition time (4.7 ± 1.0 and 5.4 ± 1.5 min with and without VBF, respectively) while reducing EI-COV by 43.8% ± 16.6%. For 8-phase acquisitions, VBF reduced acquisition time by 1.9 ± 1.6 min and EI-COVs by 38.8% ± 25.7% despite breathing rate remaining similar (11.1 ± 3.8 breaths/min with vs. 10.5 ± 2.9 without). Using VBF yielded higher duty cycles than unguided free breathing (34.4% ± 5.8% vs. 28.1% ± 6.6%, respectively). Image grading showed that out of 40 paired evaluations, 20 cases had equivalent and 17 had improved image quality scores with VBF, particularly for mid-exhale and EI. Increased liver excursion was observed with VBF, where superior-inferior, anterior-posterior, and left-right EE-EI displacements were 14.1± 5.8, 4.9 ± 2.1, and 1.5 ± 1.0 mm, respectively, with VBF compared to 11.9 ± 4.5, 3.7 ± 2.1, and 1.2 ± 1.4 mm without. Incorporating VBF into 4D MRI substantially reduced acquisition time, breathing irregularity, and image artifacts. However, differences in excursion were observed, thus implementation will be required throughout the RT workflow.
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.