Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33898772›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2021

Evaluation of the radiofrequency performance of a wide-bore 1.5 T positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging body coil for radiotherapy planning.

Woutjan Branderhorst, Bart R Steensma, Casper Beijst, Erik R Huijing, Cezar Alborahal, Edwin Versteeg, Bjoern Weissler, David Schug, Pierre Gebhardt, Nicolas Gross-Weege and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Development of a Double TunedNMR in biomedicine · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

19 authors.

Woutjan BranderhorstDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bart R SteensmaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Casper BeijstDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Erik R HuijingDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cezar AlborahalDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Edwin VersteegDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bjoern WeisslerDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
David SchugDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Pierre GebhardtDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Nicolas Gross-WeegeDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Florian MuellerDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Karl KruegerDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Thomas DeyDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Harald RadermacherDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Oliver LipsPhilips Research Europe, Hamburg, Germany.
Jan LagendijkDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Volkmar SchulzDepartment of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Hugo W A M de JongDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dennis W J KlompDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe restricted bore diameter of current simultaneous positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) systems can be an impediment to achieving similar patient positioning during PET/MRI planning and radiotherapy. Our goal was to evaluate the B MATERIALS AND

methodsWe designed and constructed a wide-bore PET/MRI RF body coil to be integrated with a clinical MRI system. To increase its inner bore diameter, the PET detectors were positioned between the conductors and the RF shield of the RF body coil. Simulations and experiments with phantoms and human volunteers were performed to compare the B

resultsIn the simulations, our design achieved nearly the same B

conclusionsTo achieve wide-bore PET/MRI, it is possible to integrate shielding for PET detectors between the body coil conductors and the RF shield without compromising MRI performance. Reduced B

Indexed as

Body coilPET/MRIRadiotherapyRF shieldingTreatment planningWide bore

Identifiers

PMID33898772
PMCPMC8057958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.