ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2017
Chemical Shift magnetization transfer magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnetization Transfer Ratio of Peripheral Nerve and Skeletal Muscle : Correlation with Demographic Variables in Healthy Volunteers.Clinical neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Combining inhomogeneous magnetization transfer and multipoint Dixon acquisition: Potential utility and evaluation.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this work was to develop a chemical shift magnetization transfer (CSMT) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) method to provide accurate magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) measurements in the presence of fat.
methodsNumerical simulations were performed to compare MTR measurements at different echo times (TEs) for voxels with varying fat/water content. The CSMT approach was developed using water fraction estimates to correct for the impact of fat signal upon observed MTR measurements. The CSMT method was validated with oil/agarose phantom and animal studies.
resultsSimulations demonstrated that the observed MTRs vary with water fraction as well as with the TE-dependent phase difference between fat and water signals; simulations also showed that a linear relationship exists between MTR and water fraction when fat and water signals are in phase. For phantom studies, observed MTR decreased with increasing oil fraction: 42.41 ± 0.54, 38.12 ± 0.33, 32.93 ± 0.56, and 26.08 ± 0.87 for 5% to 40% oil fractions, respectively, compared to 42.63 ± 1.04 for phantom containing 4% agarose only. These offsets were readily corrected with the additional acquisition of a water fraction map.
conclusionFat fraction and TE can significantly impact observed MTR measurements. The new CSMT approach offers the potential to eliminate the effects of fat upon MTR measurements. Magn Reson Med 78:656-663, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
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.