ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2020
Dynamic contrast-enhanced QSM for perfusion imaging: a systematic comparison of ΔR2*- and QSM-based contrast agent concentration time curves in blood and tissue.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 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.
- An external reference to enable quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in absolute terms: theoretical considerations, simulations, and experimental evaluation.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Temporal Shift When Comparing Contrast-Agent Concentration Curves Estimated Using Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) and ΔR2*: The Association Between Vortex Parameters and Oxygen Extraction Fraction.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- DSC MRI in the human brain using deoxyhemoglobin and gadolinium-Simulations and validations at 3T.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2023Article
- Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) of the cardiovascular system: challenges and perspectives.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC-MRI), an arterial input function (AIF) is required to quantify perfusion. However, estimation of the concentration of contrast agent (CA) from magnitude MRI signal data is challenging. A reasonable alternative would be to quantify CA concentration using quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), as the CA alters the magnetic susceptibility in proportion to its concentration. MATERIAL AND
methodsAIFs with reasonable appearance, selected on the basis of conventional criteria related to timing, shape, and peak concentration, were registered from both ΔR2* and QSM images and mutually compared by visual inspection. Both ΔR2*- and QSM-based AIFs were used for perfusion calculations based on tissue concentration data from ΔR2*as well as QSM images.
resultsAIFs based on ΔR2* and QSM data showed very similar shapes and the estimated cerebral blood flow values and mean transit times were similar. Analysis of corresponding ΔR2* versus QSM-based concentration estimates yielded a transverse relaxivity estimate of 89 s DISCUSSION: Interestingly, arterial concentration time curves based on ΔR2* versus QSM data, for a standard DSC-MRI experiment, were generally very similar in shape, and the relaxivity obtained in voxels representing blood was similar to tissue relaxivity obtained in previous studies.
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.