ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Evaluation of a Dedicated Radiofrequency Carotid PET/MRI Coil.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Denoising for High-Resolution Carotid Vessel Wall MRI Using Standard Neurovascular Coils.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- PET Imaging of Carotid Atherosclerosis: Methodology, Implications, and Applications in Neurovascular Disease.Stroke · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid radiofrequency coils inside a PET/MRI system can result in PET quantification errors. We compared the performance of a dedicated PET/MRI carotid coil against a coil for MRI-only use. An 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) phantom was scanned without and with an MRI-only coil and with the PET/MRI coil. The decay-corrected normalized activity was compared for the different coil configurations. Eighteen patients were scanned with the three coil configurations. The maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA was performed to assess the differences in SUVmax and SNR between the coil configurations. In the phantom study, the PET/MRI coil demonstrated a slight decrease (<5%), while the MRI-only coil showed a substantial decrease (up to 10%) in normalized activity at the position of coil elements compared to no dedicated coil configuration. In the patient study, the SUVmax values for both no surface coil (3.59 ± 0.15) and PET/MRI coil (3.54 ± 0.15) were significantly higher (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) as compared to the MRI-only coil (3.28 ± 0.16). No significant difference was observed between PET/MRI and no surface coil (p = 1.0). The SNR values for both PET/MRI (7.31 ± 0.44) and MRI-only (7.62 ± 0.42) configurations demonstrated significantly higher (p < 0.001) SNR values as compared to the no surface coil (3.78 ± 0.22), while no significant difference was observed in SNR between the PET/MRI and MRI-only coil (p = 1.0). This study demonstrated that the PET/MRI coil can be used for PET imaging without requiring attenuation correction while acquiring high-resolution MR images.
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.