ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
BOLD signal simulation and fMRI quality control base on an active phantom: a preliminary study.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Introduction of a new simple dynamic phantom for physical BOLD effect simulation.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal has been commonly used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe the activity in different areas of the brain or other organs. This signal is difficult to simulate, because its amplitude is nearly 1~3% and it is influenced by multiple factors. This study aimed to design and construct an active BOLD simulation phantom and test its stability and repeatability. The phantom consisted of two perpendicular loops. The BOLD signal was simulated by different stimuli generated by a regular periodic vibration current and transmission loops. Three scanners (Siemens skyra 3.0 T, Siemens verio 3.0 T, and GE signa HD 1.5 T) were used to test the stability and repeatability of the BOLD signal detection of the phantom. The percent signal change (PSC) was calculated for each stimulus. At baseline, the phantom exhibited stability, and the average signal variation was below 1% as revealed by the three scanners. The SNR of ROIs with different sizes were markedly high, being 2326.58 and 2389.24; and the ghosting ratio were 0.39% and 0.38%, and the stimuli detection efficiency for Siemens verio and Siemens skyra was 60% and 75%, respectively. The repeated scans of the same scanner for different stimuli were highly reproducible. In the three scanners, the PSC at the same location varied from nearly 1 to 3%. The areas activated on the phantom revealed by different scanners were comparatively consistent. The phantom designed for fMRI quantitative quality control displays good adaptability to different scanners and is easy to operate. It can reliably collect data by simple data processing. Graphical abstract fMRI phantom testing process.
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.