Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32643152›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2021

Individualized SAR calculations using computer vision-based MR segmentation and a fast electromagnetic solver.

Eugene Milshteyn, Georgy Guryev, Angel Torrado-Carvajal, Elfar Adalsteinsson, Jacob K White, Lawrence L Wald, Bastien Guerin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Magnetic resonance imaging.Science advances · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. MARIE 2.0: A Perturbation Matrix Based Patient-Specific MRI Field Simulator.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eugene MilshteynAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0213-7003
Georgy GuryevDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Angel Torrado-CarvajalAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1540-2809
Elfar AdalsteinssonDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jacob K WhiteDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Lawrence L WaldAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA.
Bastien GuerinAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA, USA.

Funding

Parallel Excitation Methods for High Field MRIR01EB006847 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI WALD, LAWRENCE L · 2007 to 2020
$5.4M
Neuroimaging of deep brain stimulation patients using safe MRI excitationsR00EB019482 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GUERIN, BASTIEN · 2017 to 2019
$747k
NIBIB NIH HHS R00 EB019482NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB006847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe propose a fast, patient-specific workflow for on-line specific absorption rate (SAR) supervision. An individualized electromagnetic model is created while the subject is on the table, followed by rapid SAR estimates for that individual. Our goal is an improved correspondence between the patient and model, reducing reliance on general anatomical body models.

methodsA 3D fat-water 3T acquisition (~2 minutes) is automatically segmented using a computer vision algorithm (~1 minute) into what we found to be the most important electromagnetic tissue classes: air, bone, fat, and soft tissues. We then compute the individual's EM field exposure and global and local SAR matrices using a fast electromagnetic integral equation solver. We assess the approach in 10 volunteers and compare to the SAR seen in a standard generic body model (Duke).

resultsThe on-the-table workflow averaged 7'44″. Simulation of the simplified Duke models confirmed that only air, bone, fat, and soft tissue classes are needed to estimate global and local SAR with an error of 6.7% and 2.7%, respectively, compared to the full model. In contrast, our volunteers showed a 16.0% and 20.3% population variability in global and local SAR, respectively, which was mostly underestimated by the Duke model.

conclusionTimely construction and deployment of a patient-specific model is computationally feasible. The benefit of resolving the population heterogeneity compared favorably to the modest modeling error incurred. This suggests that individualized SAR estimates can improve electromagnetic safety in MRI and possibly reduce conservative safety margins that account for patient-model mismatch, especially in non-standard patients.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingComputersComputer SimulationElectromagnetic FieldsHumanselectromagneticpatient-specificSARsegmentation

Identifiers

PMID32643152
PMCPMC7722143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.