ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2022
Optimised passive marker device visibility and automatic marker detection for 3-T MRI-guided endovascular interventions: a pulsatile flow phantom study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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.
- 3-T MRI in vitro characterisation of a SPION-polymer balloon catheter: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Simple-to-Fabricate and Water-Stable Instrument Markers for Preclinical Magnetic Particle Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Interventional device tracking under MRI via alternating current controlled inhomogeneities.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPassive paramagnetic markers on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-compatible endovascular devices induce susceptibility artifacts, enabling MRI-visibility and real-time MRI-guidance. Optimised visibility is crucial for automatic detection and device tracking but depends on MRI technical parameters and marker characteristics. We assessed marker visibility and automatic detection robustness for varying MRI parameters and marker characteristics in a pulsatile flow phantom.
methodsGuidewires with varying iron(II,III) oxide nanoparticle (IONP) concentration markers were imaged using gradient-echo (GRE) and balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) sequences at 3 T. Furthermore, echo time (TE), slice thickness (ST) and phase encoding direction (PED) were varied. Artifact width was measured and contrast-to-noise ratios were calculated. Marker visibility and image quality were scored by two MRI interventional radiologists. Additionally, a deep learning model for automatic marker detection was trained and the effects of the parameters on detection performance were evaluated. Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used (significance level, p < 0.05).
resultsMedan artifact width (IQR) was larger in bSSFP compared to GRE images (12.7 mm (11.0-15.2) versus 8.4 mm (6.5-11.0)) (p < 0.001) and showed a positive relation with TE and IONP concentration. Switching PED and doubling ST had limited effect on artifact width. Image quality assessment scores were higher for GRE compared to bSSFP images. The deep learning model automatically detected the markers. However, the model performance was reduced after adjusting PED, TE, and IONP concentration.
conclusionMarker visibility was sufficient and a large range of artifact sizes was generated by adjusting TE and IONP concentration. Deep learning-based marker detection was feasible but performance decreased for altered MR parameters. These factors should be considered to optimise device visibility and ensure reliable automatic marker detectability in MRI-guided endovascular interventions.
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.