ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2023
Toward a realistic in silico abdominal phantom for QSM.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation of realistic brain phantoms for susceptibility tensor imaging.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Towards an anthropomorphic MRI phantom mimicking static and dynamic BMagma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Labeled Numerical Phantom of Abdominal Wall for Wave-Physics-Based Ultrasound Imaging: Applications to Image Reconstruction.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Ventra: A Programmable Abdominal Phantom for Training, Educational, Research, and Development Purposes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Toward a realistic in silico abdominal phantom for QSM.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeQSM outside the brain has recently gained interest, particularly in the abdominal region. However, the absence of reliable ground truths makes difficult to assess reconstruction algorithms, whose quality is already compromised by additional signal contributions from fat, gases, and different kinds of motion. This work presents a realistic in silico phantom for the development, evaluation and comparison of abdominal QSM reconstruction algorithms.
methodsSynthetic susceptibility and
resultsQSM reconstructions show that the phantom allows to identify the main strengths and limitations of the acquisition approaches and reconstruction algorithms, such as in-phase acquisitions, water-fat separation methods, and QSM dipole inversion algorithms.
conclusionThe phantom showed its potential as a ground truth to evaluate and compare reconstruction pipelines and algorithms. The publicly available source code, designed in a modular framework, allows users to easily modify the susceptibility,
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.