Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36460923›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Validation of a highly accelerated post-contrast wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI) 3D-T1 MPRAGE compared to standard 3D-T1 MPRAGE for detection of intracranial enhancing lesions on 3-T MRI.

Augusto Lio M Goncalves Filho, Komal Manzoor Awan, John Conklin, Chanon Ngamsombat, Stephen F Cauley, Kawin Setsompop, Wei Liu, Daniel N Splitthoff, Wei-Ching Lo, John E Kirsch and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Practical Brain MRI Guidelines for Anti-Aβ Antibody Treatment in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Augusto Lio M Goncalves Filho *Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Komal Manzoor Awan *Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
John ConklinDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Chanon NgamsombatAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Charlestown, MA, USA.
Stephen F CauleyDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Kawin SetsompopDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Wei LiuSiemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance Ltd., Shenzhen, China.
Daniel N SplitthoffSiemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Wei-Ching LoSiemens Medical Solutions Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
John E KirschDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Pamela W SchaeferDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Otto RapalinoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Susie Y HuangDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. Susie.huang@mgh.harvard.edu.
Harvard University · USAthinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USSiemens (China) · CNSiemens Healthcare (Germany) · DESiemens (United States) · US

Funding

Training and Dissemination CoreP41EB030006 · NIBIB · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Susie Yi Huang, BRUCE R ROSEN · 2020 to 2026
$10.9M
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health P41EB030006)NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB030006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHigh-resolution post-contrast T1-weighted imaging is a workhorse sequence in the evaluation of neurological disorders. The T1-MPRAGE sequence has been widely adopted for the visualization of enhancing pathology in the brain. However, this three-dimensional (3D) acquisition is lengthy and prone to motion artifact, which often compromises diagnostic quality. The goal of this study was to compare a highly accelerated wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI) post-contrast 3D T1-MPRAGE sequence (Wave-T1-MPRAGE) with the standard 3D T1-MPRAGE sequence for visualizing enhancing lesions in brain imaging at 3 T.

methodsThis study included 80 patients undergoing contrast-enhanced brain MRI. The participants were scanned with a standard post-contrast T1-MPRAGE sequence (acceleration factor [R] = 2 using GRAPPA parallel imaging technique, acquisition time [TA] = 5 min 18 s) and a prototype post-contrast Wave-T1-MPRAGE sequence (R = 4, TA = 2 min 32 s). Two neuroradiologists performed a head-to-head evaluation of both sequences and rated the visualization of enhancement, sharpness, noise, motion artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality. A 15% noninferiority margin was used to test whether post-contrast Wave-T1-MPRAGE was noninferior to standard T1-MPRAGE. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were calculated. Quantitative assessment of CNR/SNR was performed.

resultsWave-T1-MPRAGE was noninferior to standard T1-MPRAGE for delineating enhancing lesions with unanimous agreement in all cases between raters. Wave-T1-MPRAGE was noninferior in the perception of noise (p < 0.001), motion artifact (p < 0.001), and overall diagnostic quality (p < 0.001).

conclusionHigh-accelerated post-contrast Wave-T1-MPRAGE enabled a two-fold reduction in acquisition time compared to the standard sequence with comparable performance for visualization of enhancing pathology and equivalent perception of noise, motion artifacts and overall diagnostic quality without loss of clinically important information. KEY POINTS: • Post-contrast wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI) T1-MPRAGE accelerated the acquisition of three-dimensional (3D) high-resolution post-contrast images by more than two-fold. • Post-contrast Wave-T1-MPRAGE was noninferior to standard T1-MPRAGE with unanimous agreement between reviewers (100% in 80 cases) for the visualization of intracranial enhancing lesions. • Wave-T1-MPRAGE was equivalent to the standard sequence in the perception of noise in 94% (75 of 80) of cases and was preferred in 16% (13 of 80) of cases for decreased motion artifact.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingArtifactsBrainHumansMotionAccelerationGadoliniumMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingThree-dimensional imaging

Identifiers

PMID36460923
PMCPMC9718459
OpenAlexW4310644252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.