ArticleClinical neuroradiology2024
Reduction of Distortion Artifacts in Brain MRI Using a Field Map-based Correction Technique in Diffusion-weighted Imaging : A Prospective Study.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ultrafast Brain MRI at 3 T for MS: Evaluation of a 51-Second Deep Learning-Enhanced T2-EPI-FLAIR Sequence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the image quality and feasibility of a field map-based technique to correct for susceptibility-induced geometric distortions which are typical for diffusion EPI brain imaging.
methodsWe prospectively included 52 patients during clinical routine in this single-center study. All scans were performed on a 3T MRI. Patients' indications for MRI mainly consisted of suspected stroke due to the clinical presentation. For the morphological comparison of the corrected and uncorrected EPI diffusion, three experienced radiologists assessed the image quality of the sequences in a blinded and randomized fashion using a Likert scale (1 being poor; 5 being excellent). To ensure comparability of the two methods, an additional quantitative analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was performed.
resultsCorrected EPI diffusion was rated significantly superior in all the selected categories: overall level of artifacts (p < 0.001), degree of distortion at the frontal, temporal, occipital and brainstem levels (p < 0.001), conspicuousness of ischemic lesions (p < 0.001), image quality (p < 0.001), naturality (p < 0.001), contrast (p < 0.001), and diagnostic confidence (p < 0.001).
conclusionCorrected EPI diffusion offers a significant reduction of geometric distortion in all evaluated brain regions and an improved conspicuousness of ischemic lesions. Image quality, overall artifacts, naturality, contrast and diagnostic confidence were also rated superior in comparison to uncorrected EPI diffusion.
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.