ArticlePloS one2019
Measurement reproducibility of slice-interleaved T1 and T2 mapping sequences over 20 months: A single center study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatability and robustness of MP-GRASP TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of TJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
- Cardiac T2 mapping: robustness and homogeneity of standardized in-line analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantifying reproducibility of native T1 and T2 mapping over a long period (> 1 year) is necessary to assess whether changes in T1 and T2 over repeated sessions in a longitudinal study are associated with variability due to underlying tissue composition or technical confounders.
objectivesTo carry out a single-center phantom study to 1) investigate measurement reproducibility of slice-interleaved T1 (STONE) and T2 mapping over 20 months, 2) quantify sources of variability, and 3) compare reproducibility and measurements against reference spin-echo measurements.
methodsMR imaging was performed on a 1.5 Tesla Philips Achieva scanner every 2-3 weeks over 20 months using the T1MES phantom. In each session, slice-interleaved T1 and T2 mapping was repeated 3 times for 5 slices, and maps were reconstructed using both 2-parameter and 3-parameter fit models. Reproducibility between sessions, and repeatability between repetitions and slices were evaluated using coefficients of variation (CV). Different sources of variability were quantified using variance decomposition analysis. The slice-interleaved measurement was compared to the spin-echo reference and MOLLI.
resultsSlice-interleaved T1 had excellent reproducibility and repeatability with a CV < 2%. The main sources of T1 variability were temperature in 2-parameter maps, and slice in 3-parameter maps. Superior between-session reproducibility to the spin-echo T1 was shown in 2-parameter maps, and similar reproducibility in 3-parameter maps. Superior reproducibility to MOLLI T1 was also shown. Similar measurements to the spin-echo T1 were observed with linear regression slopes of 0.94-0.99, but slight underestimation. Slice-interleaved T2 showed good reproducibility and repeatability with a CV < 7%. The main source of T2 variability was slice location/orientation. Between-session reproducibility was lower than the spin-echo T2 reference and showed good measurement agreement with linear regression slopes of 0.78-1.06.
conclusionsSlice-interleaved T1 and T2 mapping sequences yield excellent long-term reproducibility over 20 months.
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.