ArticleNMR in biomedicine2020
Metabolite cycled liver
Article in NMR in biomedicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liver magnetic resonance spectroscopy as an alternative for evaluating Niemann-Pick C disease progression.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy at 3.0T in Rabbit With VX2 Liver Cancer: Diagnostic Efficacy and Correlations With Tumor Size.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Hepatic Fat from Fundamental to Clinical Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Metabolite cycled liverNMR in biomedicine · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSingle-voxel
methodsHere we show the application of metabolite cycling (MC) for liver STEAM-localized
resultsThe preserved water signal in MC-STEAM allowed for robust phase and frequency correction of individual acquisitions before averaging, which resulted in in vivo liver spectra that were of equal quality when measurements were made with free breathing or synchronized breathing. Intra-session repeatability and inter-session reproducibility of liver lipid quantification were better for MC-STEAM than for VAPOR-STEAM. This may also be explained by the more robust phase and frequency correction of the individual MC-STEAM acquisitions as compared with the VAPOR-STEAM acquisitions, for which the low-signal-to-noise ratio lipid signals had to be used for the corrections.
conclusionNon-water-suppressed MC-STEAM on a 7 T system with parallel transmit is a promising approach for
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.