Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30247483›Full record

ArticleJournal of visualized experiments : JoVE2018

Fat-Water Phantoms for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Validation: A Flexible and Scalable Protocol.

Emily C Bush, Aliya Gifford, Crystal L Coolbaugh, Theodore F Towse, Bruce M Damon, E Brian Welch

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Concurrent water TMagnetic resonance imaging · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effect of particle size on liver MRIMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Trajectory correction enables free-running chemical shift encoded imaging for accurate cardiac proton-density fat fraction quantification at 3T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024 · on this map
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily C BushVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Aliya GiffordDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Crystal L CoolbaughVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Theodore F TowseVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Grand Valley State University.
Bruce M DamonVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Department of Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University; Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University; bruce.damon@vanderbilt.edu.
E Brian WelchVanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science (VUIIS), Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Department of Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USGrand Valley State University · US

Funding

Postdoctoral Training in Biomedical MRI and MRST32EB001628 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI John C Gore · 2003 to 2026
$7.0M
Non-invasive assessment of human brown adipose tissue mass and activityR01DK105371 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI DAMON, BRUCE M. · 2015 to 2019
$2.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001628NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK105371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As new techniques are developed to image adipose tissue, methods to validate such protocols are becoming increasingly important. Phantoms, experimental replicas of a tissue or organ of interest, provide a low cost, flexible solution. However, without access to expensive and specialized equipment, constructing stable phantoms with high fat fractions (e.g., >50% fat fraction levels such as those seen in brown adipose tissue) can be difficult due to the hydrophobic nature of lipids. This work presents a detailed, low cost protocol for creating 5x 100 mL phantoms with fat fractions of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% using basic lab supplies (hotplate, beakers, etc.) and easily accessible components (distilled water, agar, water-soluble surfactant, sodium benzoate, gadolinium-diethylenetriaminepentacetate (DTPA) contrast agent, peanut oil, and oil-soluble surfactant). The protocol was designed to be flexible; it can be used to create phantoms with different fat fractions and a wide range of volumes. Phantoms created with this technique were evaluated in the feasibility study that compared the fat fraction values from fat-water magnetic resonance imaging to the target values in the constructed phantoms. This study yielded a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.998 (95% confidence interval: 0.972-1.00). In summary, these studies demonstrate the utility of fat phantoms for validating adipose tissue imaging techniques across a range of clinically relevant tissues and organs.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID30247483
PMCPMC6235120
OpenAlexW2890443118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.