ArticleScientific reports2022
Diagnosis of intracranial lesions using accelerated 3D T1 MPRAGE with wave-CAIPI technique: comparison with conventional 3D T1 MPRAGE.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cartesian MPnRAGE for Efficient Simultaneous Multi-Contrast and Quantitative Relaxometry Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability of brain volume measures of accelerated 3D T1-weighted images with deep learning-based reconstruction.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Clinical feasibility of CS-VIBE accelerates MRI techniques in diagnosing intracranial metastasis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the agreement in the diagnosis of intracranial lesions between conventional pre-contrast 3D T1 magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) and wave-CAIPI (wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging) MPRAGE. Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived for this retrospective study. We included 149 consecutive patients who had undergone brain MR with both conventional MPRAGE (scan time: 5 min 42 s) and wave-CAIPI MPRAGE (scan time: 2 min 44 s) from February to June 2018. All images were independently reviewed by two radiologists for the diagnosis of intracranial lesion and scored image quality using visual analysis. One technician measured signal-to-noise ratio. The agreement for diagnosis of intracranial lesion was calculated, and the intra- and interobserver agreements were analyzed by using kappa value. For the diagnosis of intracranial lesion, the conventional and wave-CAIPI MPRAGE demonstrated 99.7% of agreement (297 of 298) in the pooled analysis with very good agreement (k = 0.994). Intra- and inter-observer agreement showed very good (k > 0.9 in all) and good (k > 0.75) agreement, respectively. In the quantitative analysis, the signal-to-noise ratio had no difference (P > 0.05 for all). The overall image quality was poorer in images of wave-CAIPI MPRAGE (P < 0.001), but motion artifact had no difference between two sequences (P = 0.06). Compared to conventional MPRAGE, pre-contrast 3D T1 wave-CAIPI MPRAGE achieved higher agreement for the diagnosis of intracranial lesions and reduced the scan time by approximately 50%.
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.