ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2020
Comprehensive Evaluation of B
Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and reproducibility of quantitative values depend on acquisition parameters in magnetic resonance fingerprinting.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Assessment of accuracy and repeatability of quantitative parameter mapping in MRI.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Three-dimensional Multi-parameter Mapping of Relaxation Times and Susceptibility Using Partially RF-spoiled Gradient Echo.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Article
- Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of TEuropean radiology · 2023Article
- Simultaneous relaxometry and morphometry of human brain structures with 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting: a multicenter, multiplatform, multifield-strength study.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of TJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Repeatability of MR fingerprinting in normal cervix and utility in cervical carcinoma.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Quantitative imaging metrics derived from magnetic resonance fingerprinting using ISMRM/NIST MRI system phantom: An international multicenter repeatability and reproducibility study.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Intracranial Distribution of Intravenously Administered Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent over a Period of 24 Hours: Evaluation with 3D-real IR Imaging and MR Fingerprinting.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2021Article
- Repeatability and reproducibility of human brain morphometry using three-dimensional magnetic resonance fingerprinting.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Variability and Standardization of Quantitative Imaging: Monoparametric to Multiparametric Quantification, Radiomics, and Artificial Intelligence.Investigative radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate comprehensively; accuracy, repeatability and reproducibility of T
methodsThe International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) phantom was scanned for 100 days, and six healthy volunteers for 5 days using a FISP-MRF prototype sequence. Accuracy was evaluated on the phantom by comparing relaxation times measured by FISP-MRF with the reference values provided by the phantom manufacturer. Daily repeatability was characterized as the coefficient of variation (CV) of the measurements over 100 days for the phantom and over 5 days for volunteers. In addition, the cross-scanner reproducibility was evaluated in volunteers.
resultsIn the phantom study, T
conclusionB
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.