ArticlePloS one2023
Wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI): Accelerating speed for the MRI-based diagnosis of enhancing intracranial lesions compared to magnetization-prepared gradient echo.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to validate the diagnostic performance of accelerated post-contrast magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo (MPRAGE) using wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (Wave-CAIPI) for enhancing intracranial lesions, compared with conventional MPRAGE.
methodsA total of 233 consecutive patients who underwent post-contrast Wave-CAIPI and conventional MPRAGE (scan time: 2 min 39 s vs. 4 min 30 s) were retrospectively evaluated. Two radiologists independently assessed whole images for the presence and diagnosis of enhancing lesions. The diagnostic performance for non-enhancing lesions, quantitative parameters (diameter of enhancing lesions, signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR], and contrast rate), qualitative parameters (grey-white matter differentiation and conspicuity of enhancing lesions), and image qualities (overall image quality and motion artifacts) were also surveyed. The weighted kappa and percent agreement were used to evaluate the diagnostic agreement between the two sequences.
resultsWave-CAIPI MPRAGE achieved significantly high agreement for the detection (98.7%[460/466], κ = 0.965) and diagnosis (97.8%[455/466], κ = 0.955) of enhancing intracranial lesions with conventional MPRAGE in pooled analysis. Detection and diagnosis of non-enhancing lesions (97.6% and 96.9% agreement), and diameter of enhancing lesions (P>0.05) also demonstrated high agreements between two sequences. Although Wave-CAIPI MPRAGE show lower SNR (P<0.01) than conventional MRAGE, it fulfilled comparable CNR (P = 0.486) and higher contrast rate (P<0.01). The qualitative parameters show similar value (P>0.05). The overall image quality was slightly poor, however, motion artifacts were better in Wave-CAIPI MPRAGE (both P = 0.005).
conclusionWave-CAIPI MPRAGE provides reliable diagnostic performance for enhancing intracranial lesions within half of the scan time compared with conventional MPRAGE.
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.