ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2018
MRI quality assurance based on 3D FLAIR brain images.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence of silent cerebral lesions during pulsed field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Comparison of observed image quality and technical image quality parameters in 3D-FLAIR images.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Characterizing geometric distortions of 3D sequences in clinical head MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveQuality assurance (QA) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often relies on imaging phantoms with suitable structures and uniform regions. However, the connection between phantom measurements and actual clinical image quality is ambiguous. Thus, it is desirable to measure objective image quality directly from clinical images. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this work, four measurements suitable for clinical image QA were presented: image resolution, contrast-to-noise ratio, quality index and bias index. The methods were applied to a large cohort of clinical 3D FLAIR volumes over a test period of 9.5 months. The results were compared with phantom QA. Additionally, the effect of patient movement on the presented measures was studied.
resultsA connection between the presented clinical QA methods and scanner performance was observed: the values reacted to MRI equipment breakdowns that occurred during the study period. No apparent correlation with phantom QA results was found. The patient movement was found to have a significant effect on the resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio values. DISCUSSION: QA based on clinical images provides a direct method for following MRI scanner performance. The methods could be used to detect problems, and potentially reduce scanner downtime. Furthermore, with the presented methodologies comparisons could be made between different sequences and imaging settings. In the future, an online QA system could recognize insufficient image quality and suggest an immediate re-scan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30120616What 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.