ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of T
Article in European radiology, 2023. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fast and reliable quantitative measures of white matter development with magnetic resonance fingerprinting.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Synthetic MRI and MR Fingerprinting-Derived Relaxometry of Antenatal Human Brainstem Myelination: A Postmortem-Based Quantitative Imaging Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of T
methodsThe ISMRM/NIST phantom was scanned daily for 10 days in two 3 T MR scanners using a 3D MRF sequence reconstructed using four dictionaries with varying step sizes and one dictionary with wider ranges. Thirty-nine healthy volunteers were enrolled: 20 subjects underwent whole-brain MRF scans in both scanners and the rest in one scanner. ROI/VOI analyses were performed on phantom and brain MRF maps. Accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility metrics were calculated.
resultsIn the phantom study, all dictionaries showed high T
conclusionsThe accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility of 3D MRF across various dictionary resolutions were high for T KEY POINTS: • A lower-resolution dictionary with a well-defined range may be sufficient for 3D MRF reconstruction. • CSF relaxation times might be underestimated due to truncation by the upper dictionary range. • Dictionary with a higher upper range might be advisable, especially for CSF evaluation and elderly subjects whose perivascular spaces are more prominent.
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.