ArticlePloS one2018
A 3D two-point method for whole-brain water content and relaxation time mapping: Comparison with gold standard methods.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-Individual Differences in TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Classic and Quantitative Imaging Features in the Differentiation of Benign and Atypical Lipomatous Soft Tissue Tumors Using a Standardized Multiparametric MRI Protocol: A Prospective Single-Centre Study in 45 Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Repeated Sub-Concussive Impacts and the Negative Effects of Contact Sports on Cognition and Brain Integrity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- A Single-Scan, Rapid Whole-Brain Protocol for Quantitative Water Content Mapping With Neurobiological Implications.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative imaging of the human brain is of great interest in clinical research as it enables the identification of a range of MR biomarkers useful in diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of a wide spectrum of diseases. Here, a 3D two-point method for water content and relaxation time mapping is presented and compared to established gold standard methods. The method determines free water content, H2O, and the longitudinal relaxation time, T1, quantitatively from a two-point fit to the signal equation including corrections of the transmit and receive fields. In addition, the effective transverse relaxation time, T2*, is obtained from an exponential fit to the multi-echo signal train and its influence on H2O values is corrected. The phantom results obtained with the proposed method show good agreement for H2O and T1 values with known and spectroscopically measured values, respectively. The method is compared in vivo to already established gold standard quantitative methods. For H2O and T2* mapping, the 3D two-point results were compared to a measurement conducted with a multiple-echo GRE with long TR and T1 is compared to results from a Look-Locker method, TAPIR. In vivo results show good overall agreement between the methods, but some systematic deviations are present. Besides an expected dependence of T2* on voxel size, T1 values are systematically larger in the 3D approach than those obtained with the gold standard method. This behaviour might be due to imperfect spoiling, influencing each method differently. Results for H2O differ due to differences in the saturation of cerebrospinal fluid and partial volume effects. In addition, ground truth values of in vivo studies are unknown, even when comparing to in vivo gold standard methods. A detailed region-of-interest analysis for H2O and T1 matches well published literature values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.