ArticleNeuroradiology2017
Clinical validation of synthetic brain MRI in children: initial experience.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Advanced Multimodality Synthetic MRI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Derived Parameters in the Differentiating Neurocysticercosis and Tuberculomas.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- MRI-based human brain atlases of R1, R2, proton density, and myelin volume fraction using synthetic quantitative imaging at 1.5 T.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Synthetic MR: Clinical applications in neuroradiology.Neuroradiology · 2025Review
- Quantitative MR Imaging of the Breast.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Quantifying myelin in neonates using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic literature review.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2024Article
- Synthetic MRI for the quantitative and morphologic assessment of head and neck tumors: a preliminary study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2023Article
- The advantages of the magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) method for the prognosis of neonatal hypoglycemic encephalopathy.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Predicting of Ki-67 Expression Level Using Diffusion-Weighted and Synthetic Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer.The breast journal · 2023Article
- Characterization of meningiomas with synthetic imaging.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
- Article
- T2 relaxation time shortening in the cochlea of patients with sudden sensory neuronal hearing loss: a retrospective study using quantitative synthetic magnetic resonance imaging.European radiology · 2021Article
- Validity of SyMRI for Assessment of the Neonatal Brain.Clinical neuroradiology · 2021Article
- Comparison between synthetic and conventional magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis and controls.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Synthetic MRI of Preterm Infants at Term-Equivalent Age: Evaluation of Diagnostic Image Quality and Automated Brain Volume Segmentation.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2020Article
- SyMRI detects delayed myelination in preterm neonates.European radiology · 2019Article
- Aberrant myelination in patients with Sturge-Weber syndrome analyzed using synthetic quantitative magnetic resonance imaging.Neuroradiology · 2019Article
- The Effect of Varying Slice Thickness and Interslice Gap on TMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2019Article
- Feasibility of a Synthetic MR Imaging Sequence for Spine Imaging.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2018Article
- Quantitative Synthetic MRI in Children: Normative Intracranial Tissue Segmentation Values during Development.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2017Article
- Image quality at synthetic brain magnetic resonance imaging in children.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of synthetic MR sequences generated through post-acquisition processing of a single sequence measuring inherent R1, R2, and PD tissue properties compared with sequences acquired conventionally as part of a routine clinical pediatric brain MR exam.
methodsThirty-two patients underwent routine clinical brain MRI with conventional and synthetic sequences acquired (22 abnormal). Synthetic axial T1, T2, and T2 fluid attenuation inversion recovery or proton density-weighted sequences were made to match the comparable clinical sequences. Two exams for each patient were de-identified. Four blinded reviewers reviewed eight patients and were asked to generate clinical reports on each exam (synthetic or conventional) at two different time points separated by a mean of 33 days. Exams were rated for overall and specific finding agreement (synthetic/conventional and compared to gold standard consensus review by two senior reviewers with knowledge of clinical report), quality, and diagnostic confidence.
resultsOverall agreement between conventional and synthetic exams was 97%. Agreement with consensus readings was 84% (conventional) and 81% (synthetic), p = 0.61. There were no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy for specific imaging findings involving the ventricles, CSF, brain parenchyma, or vasculature between synthetic or conventional exams (p > 0.05). No significant difference in exam quality, diagnostic confidence, or noise/artifacts was noted comparing studies with synthetic or conventional sequences.
conclusionsDiagnostic accuracy and quality of synthetically generated sequences are comparable to conventionally acquired sequences as part of a standard pediatric brain exam. Further confirmation in a larger study is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27889836What 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.