ArticleNMR in biomedicine2016
Impact of uncertainty in longitudinal T1 measurements on quantification of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.
Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2016. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI Mapping of Renal TMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the uncertainty in T1 measurement, by estimating the repeatability coefficient (RC) from two repeated scans, in normal appearing brain tissues employing two different T1 mapping methods. All brain MRI scans were performed on a 3 T MR scanner in 10 patients who had low grade/benign tumors and partial brain radiation therapy (RT) without chemotherapy, at pre-RT, 3 weeks into RT, end RT (6 weeks) and 11, 33, and 85 weeks after RT. T1-weighted images were acquired using (1) a spoiled gradient echo sequence with two flip angles (2FA: 5° and 15°) and (2) a progressive saturation recovery sequence (pSR) with five different TR values (100-2000 ms). Manually drawn volumes of interest (VOIs) included left and right normal putamen and thalamus in gray matter, and frontal and parietal white matter, which were distant from tumors and received a total of accumulated radiation doses less than 5 Gy at 3 weeks. No significant changes or even trends in mean T1 from pre-RT to 3 weeks into RT in these VOIs (p ≥ 0.11, Wilcoxon sign test) allowed us to calculate the repeatability statistics of between-subject means of squares, within-subject means of squares, F-score, and RC. The 2FA method produced RCs in the range of (9.7-11.7)% in gray matter and (12.2-14.5)% in white matter; while the pSR method led to RCs ranging from 10.9 to 17.9% in gray matter and 7.5 to 10.3% in white matter. The overall mean (±SD) RCs produced by the two methods, 12.0 (±1.6)% for 2FA and 12.0 (±3.8)% for pSR, were not significantly different (p = 0.97). A similar repeatability in T1 measurement produced by the time efficient 2FA method compared with the time consuming pSR method demonstrates that the 2FA method is desirable to integrate into dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for rapid acquisition.
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.