Observational studyMagnetic resonance in medicine2019
Partial volume correction for quantitative CEST imaging of acute ischemic stroke.
Observational study 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quantification of transient ischemia using a combination method of 5-pool Lorentzian fitting and inverse Z-spectrum analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Quantitative chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging of nuclear overhauser effects in acute ischemic stroke.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical translation of amide proton transfer (APT) MRI for ischemic stroke: a systematic review (2003-2020).Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Review
- Partial volume correction for quantitative CEST imaging of acute ischemic stroke.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContributions of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) have not been previously taken into account in the quantification of APT CEST effects, and correction for the dilution of CEST effects by CSF may allow for more robust measurement of CEST signals. The objective of this study was to compare the robustness of a partial volume (PV) correction model against a standard (4-pool) multi-pool model as far as their ability to quantify CEST effects in healthy, normal, and pathological tissue.
methodsMRI data from 12 patients presenting with ischemic stroke, and 6 healthy subjects, were retrospectively analyzed. CEST signals derived from a 4-pool model and a PV correction model were compared for repeatability and pathological tissue contrast. The effect of PV correction (PVC) was assessed within 3 ranges of tissue PV estimate (PVE): high PVE voxels, low PVE voxels, and the whole slice.
resultsIn voxels with a high tissue PVE, PV correction did not make a significant difference to absolute
conclusionsPV correction yielded a measure of APT effects that was more repeatable than standard 4-pool analysis while achieving a similar CNR in pathological tissue, suggesting that PV-corrected analysis was more robust at low values of tissue PVE.
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.