Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27562024›Full record

ReviewEJNMMI physics2016

An overview of CEST MRI for non-MR physicists.

B Wu, G Warnock, M Zaiss, C Lin, M Chen, Z Zhou, L Mu, D Nanz, R Tuura, G Delso

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EJNMMI physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

152 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effective Modeling of Continuous WaveMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

92 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

B WuGE Healthcare, Waukesha (WI), USA.
G WarnockPMOD Technologies Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland.
M ZaissGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
C LinGE Healthcare, Waukesha (WI), USA.
M ChenPeking Hospital, Beijing, China.
Z ZhouGE Healthcare, Waukesha (WI), USA.
L MuUniversity of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
D NanzUniversity Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
R TuuraChildren's Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
G DelsoGE Healthcare, Waukesha (WI), USA. gaspar.delso@ge.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0438-8244

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The search for novel image contrasts has been a major driving force in the magnetic resonance (MR) research community, in order to gain further information on the body's physiological and pathological conditions.Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) is a novel MR technique that enables imaging certain compounds at concentrations that are too low to impact the contrast of standard MR imaging and too low to directly be detected in MRS at typical water imaging resolution. For this to be possible, the target compound must be capable of exchanging protons with the surrounding water molecules. This property can be exploited to cause a continuous buildup of magnetic saturation of water, leading to greatly enhanced sensitivity.The goal of the present review is to introduce the basic principles of CEST imaging to the general molecular imaging community. Special focus has been given to the comparison of state-of-the-art CEST methods reported in the literature with their positron emission tomography (PET) counterparts.

Identifiers

PMID27562024
PMCPMC4999387

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.