Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30338864›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2019

The effect of low resolution and coverage on the accuracy of susceptibility mapping.

Anita Karsa, Shonit Punwani, Karin Shmueli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Accelerated Free-Breathing 5D Multi-Echo Respiratory Motion-Resolved R2*, PDFF, and QSM Using Novel Composite Total Variation.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

3 authors.

Anita KarsaDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shonit PunwaniCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karin ShmueliDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7520-2975

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16463Cancer Research UK 20265Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQuantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) has found increasing clinical applications. However, to reduce scan time, clinical acquisitions often use reduced resolution and coverage, particularly in the through-slice dimension. The effect of these factors on QSM has begun to be assessed using only balloon phantoms and downsampled brain images. Here, we investigate the effects (and their sources) of low resolution or coverage on QSM using both simulated and acquired images.

methodsBrain images were acquired at 1 mm isotropic resolution and full brain coverage, and low resolution (up to 6 mm slice thickness) or coverage (down to 20 mm) in 5 healthy volunteers. Images at reduced resolution or coverage were also simulated in these volunteers and in a new, anthropomorphic, numerical phantom. Mean susceptibilities in 5 brain regions, including white matter, were investigated over varying resolution and coverage.

resultsThe susceptibility map contrast decreased with increasing slice thickness and spacing, and with decreasing coverage below ~40 mm for 2 different QSM pipelines. Our simulations showed that calculated susceptibility values were erroneous at low resolution or very low coverage, because of insufficient sampling and overattenuation of the susceptibility-induced field perturbations. Susceptibility maps calculated from simulated and acquired images showed similar behavior.

conclusionsBoth low resolution and low coverage lead to loss of contrast and errors in susceptibility maps. The widespread clinical practice of using low resolution and coverage does not provide accurate susceptibility maps. Simulations in images of healthy volunteers and in a new, anthropomorphic numerical phantom were able to accurately model low-resolution and low-coverage acquisitions.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsAnthropometryBrainBrain MappingComputer SimulationFemaleHeadHead and Neck NeoplasmsHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleModels, TheoreticalPhantoms, Imagingdecreased contrastlow resolutionmagnetic susceptibilitymagnetic susceptibility mappingQSM accuracyreduced field-of-view

Identifiers

PMID30338864
PMCPMC6492151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.