ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020
A novel gamma GLM approach to MRI relaxometry comparisons.
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 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.
- Reproducible Research Practices in Magnetic Resonance Neuroimaging: A Review Informed by Advanced Language Models.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2024Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging of tumor-associated-macrophages (TAMs) with a nanoparticle contrast agent.RSC advances · 2022Article
- Relaxivity-iron calibration in hepatic iron overload: Reproducibility and extension of a Monte Carlo model.NMR in biomedicine · 2021Article
- A novel gamma GLM approach to MRI relaxometry comparisons.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo demonstrate that constant coefficient of variation (CV), but nonconstant absolute variance in MRI relaxometry (T
methodsEight models including OLS and GGLM-ID were initially fit to data obtained on sulfated dextran iron oxide (SDIO) nanoparticles. Both a resampling simulation on the data as well as two separate Monte Carlo simulations (with and without concentration error) were performed to determine mean square error (MSE) and type I error rate. We then evaluated the performance of OLS/GGLM-ID on R
resultsOLS had an MSE of 4-5× that of GGLM-ID as well as a type I error rate of 20-30%, whereas GGLM-ID was near the nominal 5% level in the relaxivity study. Only OLS found statistically significant effects of MRI facility on relaxivity in an R
conclusionsOLS leads to erroneous conclusions when analyzing MRI relaxometry data. GGLM-ID factors in the inherent CV of an MRI experiment, leading to more reproducible conclusions.
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.