SynthesisMagma (New York, N.Y.)2022
Anthropomorphic brain phantoms for use in MRI systems: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-center QA of ultrahigh-field systems.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Development of a carrier device for dental-dedicated magnetic resonance imaging.Imaging science in dentistry · 2025Article
- Paramagnetic salt and agarose recipes for phantoms with desired T1 and T2 values for low-field MRI.NMR in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Biomimicking Atherosclerotic Vessels: A Relevant and (Yet) Sub-Explored Topic.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effect of Injection Parameters on the MRI and Dielectric Properties of Condensation-Cured Silicone.Polymers · 2023Article
- Article
- 3D Extrusion Printing of Biphasic Anthropomorphic Brain Phantoms Mimicking MR Relaxation Times Based on Alginate-Agarose-Carrageenan Blends.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo provide a systematic review of available brain MRI phantoms for comparison of structural and functional characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsPhantoms were identified from a literature search using two databases including Google Scholar and PubMed. Narrow inclusion criteria were followed for identification of only tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms excluding digital, computational, or numerical phantoms. Assessment criteria for the identified phantoms was based on three categories being anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking materials, and exhibiting relaxation times approximating in-vivo tissues. The available features and uses of each phantom were reported and discussed using the assessment criteria.
resultsTen phantoms were identified after screening; each proposed phantom was then summarized in a table (Table 2). Significant features and characteristics were shown in the comparisons of phantom type in each category, being anthropomorphic vs. traditional phantoms. Anthropomorphic phantoms had more anatomically accurate features than traditional phantoms. On the other hand, traditional phantoms commonly used effective tissue-mimicking materials and accurate electromagnetic properties. DISCUSSION: The findings provide an overview of the different proposed tissue-mimicking MRI brain phantoms available. Various uses and features are highlighted by comparing criteria such as anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking material, and electromagnetic properties. Tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms are an extremely useful tool for researchers and clinicians. Future applications include personalized phantom technology and validation of MR imaging and segmentation methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34463866What 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.