ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2016
High- and ultrahigh-field magnetic resonance imaging of naïve, injured and scarred vocal fold mucosae in rats.
Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical Vocal Fold and Airway Injury Models: A Scoping Review.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Review
- High-resolution magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry imaging of the human larynx.Journal of anatomy · 2021Article
- Article
- Pathophysiology of Fibrosis in the Vocal Fold: Current Research, Future Treatment Strategies, and Obstacles to Restoring Vocal Fold Pliability.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Multimodal virtual histology of rabbit vocal folds by nonlinear microscopy and nano computed tomography.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Proton density-weighted laryngeal magnetic resonance imaging in systemically dehydrated rats.The Laryngoscope · 2018Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging quantification of dehydration and rehydration in vocal fold tissue layers.PloS one · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Subepithelial changes to the vocal fold mucosa, such as fibrosis, are difficult to identify using visual assessment of the tissue surface. Moreover, without suspicion of neoplasm, mucosal biopsy is not a viable clinical option, as it carries its own risk of iatrogenic injury and scar formation. Given these challenges, we assessed the ability of high- (4.7 T) and ultrahigh-field (9.4 T) magnetic resonance imaging to resolve key vocal fold subepithelial tissue structures in the rat, an important and widely used preclinical model in vocal fold biology. We conducted serial in vivo and ex vivo imaging, evaluated an array of acquisition sequences and contrast agents, and successfully resolved key anatomic features of naïve, acutely injured, and chronically scarred vocal fold mucosae on the ex vivo scans. Naïve lamina propria was hyperintense on T1-weighted imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine contrast enhancement, whereas chronic scar was characterized by reduced lamina propria T1 signal intensity and mucosal volume. Acutely injured mucosa was hypointense on T2-weighted imaging; lesion volume steadily increased, peaked at 5 days post-injury, and then decreased - consistent with the physiology of acute, followed by subacute, hemorrhage and associated changes in the magnetic state of hemoglobin and its degradation products. Intravenous administration of superparamagnetic iron oxide conferred no T2 contrast enhancement during the acute injury period. These findings confirm that magnetic resonance imaging can resolve anatomic substructures within naïve vocal fold mucosa, qualitative and quantitative features of acute injury, and the presence of chronic scar.
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.