ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2023
Simultaneous Acquisition of Diffusion Tensor and Dynamic Diffusion MRI.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDynamic diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (ddMRI) metrics can assess transient microstructural alterations in tissue diffusivity but requires additional scan time hindering its clinical application. PURPOSE: To determine whether a diffusion gradient table can simultaneously acquire data to estimate dynamic and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Seven healthy subjects, 39 epilepsy patients (15 female, 31 male, age ± 15). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two-dimensional diffusion MRI (b = 1000 s/mm ASSESSMENT: Fifteen direction DTI was repeated twice for within-session test-retest measurements in healthy subjects. Bland-Altman analysis computed bias and limits of agreement for DTI metrics using test-retest scans and standard 15 direction vs. 5 nested cubes scans. Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis compared tensor metrics between 15 direction DTI scans (standard vs. 5 nested cubes) and the coefficients of variation (CoV) of trace and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between 30 direction ddMRI scans (standard vs. 10 nested cubes). STATISTICAL TESTS: Bland-Altman and ICC analysis using a P-value of 0.05 for statistical significance.
resultsCorrelations of mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity (RD) were strong and significant in gray (ICC > 0.95) and white matter (ICC > 0.95) between standard vs. nested cubes DTI acquisitions. Correlation of white matter fractional anisotropy was also strong (ICC > 0.95) and significant. ICCs of the CoV of dynamic ADC measured using repeated cubes and nested cubes acquisitions were modest (ICC >0.60), but significant in gray matter.
conclusionA nested cubes diffusion gradient table produces tensor-based and dynamic diffusion measurements in a single acquisition. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.