Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30042974›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2017

Mask-Adapted Background Field Removal for Artifact Reduction in Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of the Prostate.

Sina Straub, Julian Emmerich, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Klaus H Maier-Hein, Mark E Ladd, Matthias C Röthke, David Bonekamp, Frederik B Laun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Toward a realistic in silico abdominal phantom for QSM.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2023
    Article
  3. QSM Throughout the Body.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Sina StraubDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Julian EmmerichDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus H Maier-HeinJunior Group Medical Image Computing, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; and.
Mark E LaddDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Matthias C RöthkeDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
David BonekampDepartment of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Frederik B LaunDepartment of Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose an alternative processing method for quantitative susceptibility mapping of the prostate that reduces artifacts and enables better visibility and quantification of calcifications and other lesions. Three-dimensional gradient-echo magnetic resonance data were obtained from 26 patients at 3 T who previously received a planning computed tomography of the prostate. Phase images were unwrapped using Laplacian-based phase unwrapping. The background field was removed with the V-SHARP method using tissue masks for the entire abdomen (Method 1) and masks that excluded bone and the rectum (Method 2). Susceptibility maps were calculated with the iLSQR method. The quality of susceptibility maps was assessed by one radiologist and two physicists who rated the data for visibility of lesions and data quality on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (good). The readers rated susceptibility maps computed with Method 2 to be, on average, better for visibility of lesions with a score of 2.9 ± 1.1 and image quality with a score of 2.8 ± 0.8 compared with maps computed with Method 1 (2.4 ± 1.2/2.3 ± 1.0). Regarding strong artifacts, these could be removed using adapted masks, and the susceptibility values seemed less biased by the artifacts. Thus, using an adapted mask for background field removal when calculating susceptibility maps of the prostate from phase data reduces artifacts and improves visibility of lesions.

Indexed as

artifact reductionbackground field removalcalcificationprostate cancerquantitative susceptibility mapping

Identifiers

PMID30042974
PMCPMC6024456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.