ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2018
Inferring diameters of spheres and cylinders using interstitial water.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectMost early methods to infer axon diameter distributions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used single diffusion encoding sequences such as pulsed gradient spin echo (SE) and are thus sensitive to axons of diameters > 5 μm. We previously simulated oscillating gradient (OG) SE sequences for diffusion spectroscopy to study smaller axons including the majority constituting cortical connections. That study suggested the model of constant extra-axonal diffusion breaks down at OG accessible frequencies. In this study we present data from phantoms to test a time-varying interstitial apparent diffusion coefficient. MATERIALS AND
methodsDiffusion spectra were measured in four samples from water packed around beads of diameters 3, 6 and 10 μm; and 151 μm diameter tubes. Surface-to-volume ratios, and diameters were inferred.
resultsThe bead pore radii estimates were 0.60±0.08 μm, 0.54±0.06 μm and 1.0±0.1 μm corresponding to bead diameters ranging from 2.9±0.4 μm to 5.3±0.7 μm, 2.6±0.3 μm to 4.8±0.6 μm, and 4.9±0.7 μm to 9±1 μm. The tube surface-to-volume ratio estimate was 0.06±0.02 μm
conclusionInterstitial models with OG inferred 3-10 μm bead diameters from 0.54±0.06 μm to 1.0±0.1 μm pore radii and 151 μm tube diameters from 0.06±0.02 μm
Indexed as
Identifiers
29869134What 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.