ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simultaneous T1, T2, R2*, PDFF, and triglyceride quantification in the head and neck using magnetic resonance fingerprinting on a 1.5T MR-Linac.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Relaxivity of Gadobutrol and Gadoteric Acid in Cerebrospinal Fluid at 3T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Open-source quality assurance for multi-parametric MRI: a diffusion analysis update for the magnetic resonance biomarker assessment software (MR-BIAS).Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 2): T1 and T2 standardization in the ISMRM/NIST MR phantom.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Technical development and In Silico implementation of SyntheticMR in head and neck adaptive radiation therapy: A prospective R-IDEAL stage 0/1 technology development report.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Technical Optimization of SyntheticMR for the Head and Neck on a 3T MR-Simulator and 1.5T MR-Linac: A Prospective R-IDEAL Stage 2a Technology Innovation Report.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Phantoms for Quantitative Body MRI: a review and discussion of the phantom value.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Quantitative Relaxometry Metrics for Brain Metastases Compared to Normal Tissues: A Pilot MR Fingerprinting Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Conformance of a 3T radiotherapy MRI scanner to the QIBA Diffusion Profile.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of TJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine baseline accuracy and reproducibility of T
methodsAn International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) System Phantom was scanned monthly on a 3T MRI scanner for 1 year. T
resultsA strong linear correlation between measured and reference relaxation times was found for all sequences tested (R
conclusionsThe accuracy and reproducibility of T
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.