Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33410277›Full record

ArticleNMR in biomedicine2021

The muscle twitch profile assessed with motor unit magnetic resonance imaging.

Linda Heskamp, Matthew G Birkbeck, Roger G Whittaker, Ian S Schofield, Andrew M Blamire

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Linda HeskampNewcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute (NUTCRI), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6828-9336
Matthew G BirkbeckNewcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute (NUTCRI), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Roger G WhittakerNewcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute (NUTCRI), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ian S SchofieldNewcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute (NUTCRI), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andrew M BlamireNewcastle University Translational and Clinical Research Institute (NUTCRI), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Newcastle University · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_15030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Localised signal voids in diffusion-weighted (DW) images of skeletal muscle have been postulated to occur as a result of muscle fibre contraction and relaxation. We investigated the contrast mechanism of these signal voids using a combination of modelling and experimental measurements by employing DW and phase contrast (PC) imaging sequences. The DW signal and PC signal were simulated for each time point of a theoretical muscle twitch. The model incorporated compaction (simulating actively contracting muscle fibres) and translation (simulating passively moving surrounding fibres). The model suggested that the DW signal depended on contraction time and compaction whereas the PC signal depended on contraction time, compaction and translation. In a retrospective study, we tested this model with subgroup analyses on 10 healthy participants. Electrical nerve stimulation was used to generate muscle twitches in lower leg muscles; the resulting force was measured using an MR-compatible force transducer. At current levels causing a visible muscle twitch (~13 mA), the width of the first signal drop in the DW signal (mean ± SD: 103 ± 20 ms) was comparable with the force contraction time (93 ± 34 ms; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.717, P = .010). At current levels activating single motor units (~9 mA), the contraction time determined from the DW signal was 75 ± 13 ms and comparable with the PC contraction time (81 ± 15 ms; ICC = 0.925, P = .001). The maximum positive velocity was 0.55 ± 0.26 cm/s and the displacement was 0.20 ± 0.10 mm. Voxel-wise analysis revealed localised DW changes occurring together with more widespread phase changes. In conclusion, local signal attenuations in DW images following muscle fibre activation are primarily caused by compaction. The PC sequence also detects translating muscle tissue being passively pulled. The magnitude of the changes in DW and PC images depends on the twitch's contractile properties and percentage contraction. DW imaging and PC imaging can therefore measure twitch profiles of skeletal muscle fibres.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultComputer SimulationDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalTime FactorsYoung Adultcontraction timediffusion weighted imagingMotor unitMotor unit MRImuscle twitchphase contrast imaging

Identifiers

PMID33410277
PMCPMC7900994
OpenAlexW3119495095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.