ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Clinical validation of Wave-CAIPI susceptibility-weighted imaging for routine brain MRI at 1.5 T.
Article in European radiology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic evaluation of deep learning accelerated lumbar spine MRI.The neuroradiology journal · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWave-CAIPI (Controlled Aliasing in Parallel Imaging) enables dramatic reduction in acquisition time of 3D MRI sequences such as 3D susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) but has not been clinically evaluated at 1.5 T. We sought to compare highly accelerated Wave-CAIPI SWI (Wave-SWI) with two alternative standard sequences, conventional three-dimensional SWI and two-dimensional T2*-weighted Gradient-Echo (T2*w-GRE), in patients undergoing routine brain MRI at 1.5 T.
methodsIn this study, 172 patients undergoing 1.5 T brain MRI were scanned with a more commonly used susceptibility sequence (standard SWI or T2*w-GRE) and a highly accelerated Wave-SWI sequence. Two radiologists blinded to the acquisition technique scored each sequence for visualization of pathology, motion and signal dropout artifacts, image noise, visualization of normal anatomy (vessels and basal ganglia mineralization), and overall diagnostic quality. Superiority testing was performed to compare Wave-SWI to T2*w-GRE, and non-inferiority testing with 15% margin was performed to compare Wave-SWI to standard SWI.
resultsWave-SWI performed superior in terms of visualization of pathology, signal dropout artifacts, visualization of normal anatomy, and overall image quality when compared to T2*w-GRE (all p < 0.001). Wave-SWI was non-inferior to standard SWI for visualization of normal anatomy and pathology, signal dropout artifacts, and overall image quality (all p < 0.001). Wave-SWI was superior to standard SWI for motion artifact (p < 0.001), while both conventional susceptibility sequences were superior to Wave-SWI for image noise (p < 0.001).
conclusionsWave-SWI can be performed in a 1.5 T clinical setting with robust performance and preservation of diagnostic quality. KEY POINTS: • Wave-SWI accelerated the acquisition of 3D high-resolution susceptibility images in 70% of the acquisition time of the conventional T2*GRE. • Wave-SWI performed superior to T2*w-GRE for visualization of pathology, signal dropout artifacts, and overall diagnostic image quality. • Wave-SWI was noninferior to standard SWI for visualization of normal anatomy and pathology, signal dropout artifacts, and overall diagnostic image quality.
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.