ArticlePloS one2021
Reproducibility of magnetic resonance fingerprinting-based T1 mapping of the healthy prostate at 1.5 and 3.0 T: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatability of quantitative MR fingerprinting for TEuropean radiology · 2025Article
- Incorporating Spatial and Spectral Saturation Modules Into MR Fingerprinting.NMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Prospective evaluation of mpMRI-derived nomograms for detecting prostate cancer in PI-RADS v2.1 upgraded and non-upgraded lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Multicenter Repeatability and Reproducibility of MR Fingerprinting in Phantoms and in Prostatic Tissue.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- MR fingerprinting of the prostate.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Facilitating clinical translation of quantitative imaging techniques has been suggested as means of improving interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. One such technique, magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF), has significant competitive advantages over conventional mapping techniques in terms of its multi-site reproducibility, short scanning time and inherent robustness to motion. It has also been shown to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer when added to standard mpMRI sequences, however, the existing studies have all been conducted on 3.0 T MRI systems, limiting the technique's use on 1.5 T MRI scanners that are still more widely used for prostate imaging across the globe. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was, therefore, to evaluate the cross-system reproducibility of prostate MRF T1 in healthy volunteers (HVs) using 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI systems. The initial validation of MRF T1 against gold standard inversion recovery fast spin echo (IR-FSE) T1 in the ISMRM/NIST MRI system revealed a strong linear correlation between phantom-derived MRF and IR-FSE T1 values was observed at both field strengths (R2 = 0.998 at 1.5T and R2 = 0.993 at 3T; p = < 0.0001 for both). In young HVs, inter-scanner CVs demonstrated marginal differences across all tissues with the highest difference of 3% observed in fat (2% at 1.5T vs 5% at 3T). At both field strengths, MRF T1 could confidently differentiate prostate peripheral zone from transition zone, which highlights the high quantitative potential of the technique given the known difficulty of tissue differentiation in this age group. The high cross-system reproducibility of MRF T1 relaxometry of the healthy prostate observed in this preliminary study, therefore, supports the technique's prospective clinical validation as part of larger trials employing 1.5 T MRI systems, which are still widely used clinically for routine mpMRI of the prostate.
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.