Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906915›Full record

ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022

Assessing potential correlation between T

Eloïse Mougel, Sophie Malaquin, Julien Valette

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessing potential correlation between TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eloïse MougelLaboratoire des Maladies Neurodégénératives, Université Paris-Saclay, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Molecular Imaging Research Center (MIRCen), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
Sophie MalaquinLaboratoire des Maladies Neurodégénératives, Université Paris-Saclay, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Molecular Imaging Research Center (MIRCen), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
Julien ValetteLaboratoire des Maladies Neurodégénératives, Université Paris-Saclay, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Molecular Imaging Research Center (MIRCen), Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2067-5051
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile diffusion and T

methodsUsing a frequency-selective diffusion-weighted spin-echo sequence that removes J-modulation at 1.3 ppm, thus preserving lactate signal even at long TE, we investigate the effect of TE between 50.9 and 110.9 ms (while keeping diffusion time constant) on apparent diffusivity and kurtosis in the mouse brain.

resultsRegardless of the metabolites, no difference appears for the diffusion-weighted signal attenuation with increasing TE. For lactate, apparent diffusivity and kurtosis remain unchanged as TE increases.

conclusionNo significant TE dependence of diffusivity and kurtosis is measured for lactate in the 50-110 ms TE range, confirming that potential T

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingLactic AcidAnimalsBrainDiffusionMiceLactic Acidapparent diffusivityapparent kurtosiscompartmentationDW-MRSfrequency-selective sequenceintracellular/extracellularlactateT2 relaxation

Identifiers

PMID35906915
PMCPMC9545069
OpenAlexW4288801482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.