ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2022
Characterizing geometric distortions of 3D sequences in clinical head MRI.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterizing geometrical distortions in MRI for radiotherapy: Evaluating MR-SIM protocols and dose accuracy in stereotactic radiosurgery using AAPM TG-284 criteria.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePhantoms are often used to estimate the geometric accuracy in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, the distortions may differ between anatomical and phantom images. This study aimed to investigate the applicability of a phantom-based and a test-subject-based method in evaluating geometric distortion present in clinical head-imaging sequences. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe imaged a 3D-printed phantom and test subjects with two MRI scanners using two clinical head-imaging 3D sequences with varying patient-table positions and receiver bandwidths. The geometric distortions were evaluated through nonrigid registrations: the displaced acquisitions were compared against the ideal isocenter positioning, and the varied bandwidth volumes against the volume with the highest bandwidth. The phantom acquisitions were also registered to a computed tomography scan.
resultsGeometric distortion magnitudes increased with larger table displacements and were in good agreement between the phantom and test-subject acquisitions. The effect of increased distortions with decreasing receiver bandwidth was more prominent for test-subject acquisitions.
conclusionPresented results emphasize the sensitivity of the geometric accuracy to positioning and imaging parameters. Phantom limitations may become an issue with some sequence types, encouraging the use of anatomical images for evaluating the geometric accuracy.
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.