ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI derived perfusion and ventilation parameters at 1.5T and 3T in healthy volunteers.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary Dysfunction after Pediatric COVID-19.Radiology · 2023Trial
- Characterizing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using quantitative MRI biomarkers.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Characteristics of pulmonary perfusion and ventilation in healthy adults: a prospective observational study with phase-resolved functional lung magnetic resonance imaging.BMC medical imaging · 2026Observational
- Accelerating PREFUL MRI: Comparison of Registration Methods and Impact of Time Series Reduction.NMR in biomedicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Free-breathing phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) low-field magnetic resonance imaging (LF-MRI) of pulmonary dysfunction after surviving childhood cancer.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Bronchial thermoplasty reduces ventilation heterogeneity measured by phase-resolved functional lung magnetic resonance imaging in severe asthma.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Assessment of ventilation heterogeneity in severe asthma using phase-resolved functional lung magnetic resonance imaging.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- A review on functional lung avoidance radiotherapy plan for lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Chest magnetic resonance imaging in cystic fibrosis: technique and clinical benefits.Pediatric radiology · 2023Review
- Influence of gadolinium, field-strength and sequence type on quantified perfusion values in phase-resolved functional lung MRI.PloS one · 2023Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of perfusion-weighted phase-resolved functional lung magnetic resonance imaging in patients with chronic pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of functional lung parameters derived from free-breathing non-contrast-enhanced 2D ultrashort echo-time.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- A dual center and dual vendor comparison study of automated perfusion-weighted phase-resolved functional lung magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cystic fibrosis.Pulmonary circulation · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of different field strengths on perfusion and ventilation parameters, SNR and CNR derived by PREFUL MRI using predefined sequence parameters.
methodsData sets of free breathing 2d FLASH lung MRI were acquired from 15 healthy subjects at 1.5T and 3T (Magnetom Avanto and Skyra, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a maximum period of 3 days in between. The processed functional parameters regional ventilation (RVent), perfusion (Q), quantified perfusion (QQuant), perfusion defect percentage (QDP), ventilation defect percentage (VDP) and ventilation-perfusion match (VQM) were compared for systematic differences. Signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio (SNR and CNR) of both acquisitions were analyzed.
resultsRVent, Q, VDP, SNR and CNR presented no significant differences between 1.5T and 3T. QQuant (1.5T vs. 3T, P = 0.04), and QDP (1.5T vs. 3T, P≤0.01) decreased significantly at 3T. Consequently, VQM increased significantly (1.5T vs. 3T, P≤0.01). Skewness and kurtosis of the Q-values increased significantly at 3T (P≤0.01). The mean Sørensen-Dice coefficients between both series were 0.91 for QDP and 0.94 for VDP. The Bland-Altman analysis of both series showed mean differences of 4.29% for QDP, 1.23% for VDP and -5.15% for VQM. Using the above-mentioned parameters for three-day repeatability at two different scanners and field strengths, the retrospective power calculation showed, that a sample size of 15 can detect differences of 3.7% for QDP, of 2.9% for VDP and differences of 2.6% for VQM.
conclusionSignificant differences in QDP may be related to field inhomogeneities, which is expressed by increasing skewness and kurtosis at 3T. QQuant reveals only poor reproducibility between 1.5T and 3T. RVent, Q, VDP, SNR and CNR were not altered significantly at the used sequence parameters. Healthy participants with minimal defects present high spatial agreement of QDP and VDP.
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.