ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
Influence of editing pulse flip angle on J-difference MR spectroscopy.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of the flip angles of narrow-band editing pulses in J-difference edited MRS of lactate at 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
- Vespa: Integrated applications for RF pulse design, spectral simulation and MRS data analysis.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of gradient scheme and non-linear shimming on out-of-voxel echo artifacts in edited MRS.NMR in biomedicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the editing-pulse flip angle (FA) dependence of editing efficiency and ultimately to maximize the edited signal of commonly edited MR spectroscopy (MRS) signals, such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and lactate.
methodsDensity-matrix simulations were performed for a range of spin systems to find the editing-pulse FA for maximal editing efficiency. Simulations were confirmed by phantom experiments and in vivo measurements in 10 healthy participants using a 3T Philips scanner. Four MEGA-PRESS in vivo measurements targeting GABA+ and lactate were performed, comparing the conventional editing-pulse FA (FA = 180°) to the optimal one suggested by simulations (FA = 210°).
resultsSimulations and phantom experiments show that edited GABA and lactate signals are maximal at FA = 210°. Compared to conventional editing (FA = 180°), in vivo signals from GABA+ and lactate signals increase on average by 8.5% and 9.3%, respectively.
conclusionIncreasing the FA of editing-pulses in the MEGA-PRESS experiment from 180° to 210° increases the edited signals from GABA+ and lactate by about 9% in vivo.
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.