ArticlePhysiological research2022
Evaluation of blood-brain barrier integrity by the analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI - a comparison of quantitative and semi-quantitative methods.
Article in Physiological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-gadolinium T1 alterations in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Evaluation of exploratory fluid biomarkers from a phase 1 senolytic trial in mild Alzheimer's disease.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Article
- Blood-brain barrier disruption: a culprit of cognitive decline?Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2024Review
- Magnetic resonance imaging techniques for indirect assessment of myelin content in the brain using standard T1w and T2w MRI sequences and postprocessing analysis.Physiological research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a key feature of various brain disorders. To assess its integrity a parametrization of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (DCE MRI) with a contrast agent (CA) is broadly used. Parametrization can be done quantitatively or semi-quantitatively. Quantitative methods directly describe BBB permeability but exhibit several drawbacks such as high computation demands, reproducibility issues, or low robustness. Semi-quantitative methods are fast to compute, simply mathematically described, and robust, however, they do not describe the status of BBB directly but only as a variation of CA concentration in measured tissue. Our goal was to elucidate differences between five semi-quantitative parameters: maximal intensity (Imax), normalized permeability index (NPI), and difference in DCE values between three timepoints: baseline, 5 min, and 15 min (delta5-0, delta15-0, delta15-5) and two quantitative parameters: transfer constant (Ktrans) and an extravascular fraction (Ve). For the purpose of comparison, we analyzed DCE data of four patients 12-15 days after the stroke with visible CA enhancement. Calculated parameters showed abnormalities spatially corresponding with the ischemic lesion, however, findings in individual parameters morphometrically differed. Ktrans and Ve were highly correlated. Delta5-0 and delta15-0 were prominent in regions with rapid CA enhancement and highly correlated with Ktrans. Abnormalities in delta15-5 and NPI were more homogenous with less variable values, smoother borders, and less detail than Ktrans. Moreover, only delta15-5 and NPI were able to distinguish vessels from extravascular space. Our comparison provides important knowledge for understanding and interpreting parameters derived from DCE MRI by both quantitative and semi-quantitative methods.
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.