ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2018
A novel framework for evaluating the image accuracy of dynamic MRI and the application on accelerated breast DCE MRI.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of data-driven and general temporal constraints on compressed sensing for breast DCE MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a novel framework for evaluating the accuracy of quantitative analysis on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI with a specific combination of imaging technique, scanning parameters, and scanner and software performance and to test this framework with breast DCE MRI with Time-resolved angiography WIth Stochastic Trajectories (TWIST). MATERIALS AND
methodsRealistic breast tumor phantoms were 3D printed as cavities and filled with solutions of MR contrast agent. Full k-space raw data of individual tumor phantoms and a uniform background phantom were acquired. DCE raw data were simulated by sorting the raw data according to TWIST view order and scaling the raw data according to the enhancement based on pharmaco-kinetic (PK) models. The measured spatial and temporal characteristics from the images reconstructed using the scanner software were compared with the original PK model (ground truth).
resultsImages could be reconstructed using the manufacturer's platform with the modified 'raw data.' Compared with the 'ground truth,' the RMS error in all images was <10% in most cases. With increasing view-sharing acceleration, the error of the initial uptake slope decreased while the error of peak enhancement increased. Deviations of PK parameters varied with the type of enhancement.
conclusionA new framework has been developed and tested to more realistically evaluate the quantitative measurement errors caused by a combination of the imaging technique, parameters and scanner and software performance in DCE-MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28894997What 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.