Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27619999›Full record

ReviewNMR in biomedicine2017

An illustrated comparison of processing methods for MR phase imaging and QSM: combining array coil signals and phase unwrapping.

Simon Daniel Robinson, Kristian Bredies, Diana Khabipova, Barbara Dymerska, José P Marques, Ferdinand Schweser

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in NMR in biomedicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. IncorporatingFrontiers in neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  20. Renal MRI: From Nephron to NMR Signal.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023
    Review

2 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

6 authors.

Simon Daniel RobinsonHigh Field Magnetic Resonance Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
Kristian BrediesInstitute of Mathematics and Scientific Computing, University of Graz, Austria.
Diana KhabipovaLaboratory for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
Barbara DymerskaHigh Field Magnetic Resonance Centre, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
José P MarquesLaboratory for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ferdinand SchweserBuffalo Neuroimaging Analysis Center, Department of Neurology, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, New York, USA.

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
Austrian Science Fund FWF KLI 264NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phase imaging benefits from strong susceptibility effects at very high field and the high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) afforded by multi-channel coils. Combining the information from coils is not trivial, however, as the phase that originates in local field effects (the source of interesting contrast) is modified by the inhomogeneous sensitivity of each coil. This has historically been addressed by referencing individual coil sensitivities to that of a volume coil, but alternative approaches are required for ultra-high field systems in which no such coil is available. An additional challenge in phase imaging is that the phase that develops up to the echo time is "wrapped" into a range of 2π radians. Phase wraps need to be removed in order to reveal the underlying phase distribution of interest. Beginning with a coil combination using a homogeneous reference volume coil - the Roemer approach - which can be applied at 3 T and lower field strengths, we review alternative methods for combining single-echo and multi-echo phase images where no such reference coil is available. These are applied to high-resolution data acquired at 7 T and their effectiveness assessed via an index of agreement between phase values over channels and the contrast-to-noise ratio in combined images. The virtual receiver coil and COMPOSER approaches were both found to be computationally efficient and effective. The main features of spatial and temporal phase unwrapping methods are reviewed, placing particular emphasis on recent developments in temporal phase unwrapping and Laplacian approaches. The features and performance of these are illustrated in application to simulated and high-resolution in vivo data. Temporal unwrapping was the fastest of the methods tested and the Laplacian the most robust in images with low SNR. © 2016 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySignal Processing, Computer-Assistedarray coilsphasephase combinationphase unwrappingQSM

Identifiers

PMID27619999
PMCPMC5348291

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.