ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020
Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle T
Article in 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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping a reproducible water fraction and TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of the Magnetization Transfer Effect on T1 Measurements in Quantitative MR Imaging: Comparison of the Two-dimensional Multidynamic Multiecho (2D-MDME) and Three-dimensional Quantification Using an Interleaved Look-Locker Acquisition Sequence (3D-QALAS) Protocols on Two Systems.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Article
- Characterization of Portable Ultra-Low Field MRI Scanners for Multi-Center Structural Neuroimaging.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Parallel transmit hybrid pulse design for controlled on-resonance magnetization transfer in RMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Normative trajectories of RImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Paramagnetic salt and agarose recipes for phantoms with desired T1 and T2 values for low-field MRI.NMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Quantitative TImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Anisotropic longitudinal water proton relaxation in white matter investigated ex vivo in porcine spinal cord with sample rotation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Variation in cartilage T2 and T2* mapping of the wrist: a comparison between 3- and 7-T MRI.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- BMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2023Article
- Nonaqueous magnetization following adiabatic and selective pulses in brain: T1 and cross-relaxation dynamics.NMR in biomedicine · 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
- Efficiency analysis for quantitative MRI of T1 and T2 relaxometry methods.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Article
- Toward nonparametric diffusion-Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2021Article
- Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Three-dimensional fast single-point macromolecular proton fraction mapping of the human brain at 0.5 Tesla.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Article
- Cross-site quantitative MRI harmonization: The impact on age modeling in health and disease.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe widespread clinical application of quantitative MRI has been hindered by a lack of reproducibility across sites and vendors. Previous work has attributed this to incorrect B
methodsThree healthy volunteers were scanned on scanners from 3 vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips, Siemens). An extensive set of images necessary for joint T
resultsHarmonized RF spoiling conditions are insufficient to ensure good cross-vendor reproducibility. Controlled saturation magnetization transfer allows cross-protocol variability to be reduced from 18.3% to 4.0%. Whole-brain variability using the same protocol was reduced from a maximum of 19% to 4.5% across sites. Both CSMT and native vendor RF conditions have a reported variability of less than 5% for repeat measures on the same vendor.
conclusionMagnetization transfer effects are a major contributor to intersite/intrasite variability of T
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.