ArticleBMC medical imaging2023
Evaluation of the diagnostic utility on 1.5T and 3.0T
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging strategies for delineating glioma margins: Aiming at precise therapy.Fundamental research · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of a deep learning method QNet and LCModel for MRS quantification on the cloud computing platform CloudBrain-MRS.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Brain temperature, brain metabolites, and immune system phenotypes in temporal lobe epilepsy.Epilepsia open · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background
methodsOur retrospective collections included the single-voxel
resultsThree metabolite ratios (NAA/Cr, NAA/Cho, and NAA/(Cho + Cr) showed the same statistical difference (p < 0.05) in distinguishing the TLE from HCs in the bilateral temporal poles when using 1.5T or 3.0T scanners. Similarly, the power analysis demonstrated that four metabolite ratios (NAA/Cr, NAA/Cho, NAA/(Cho + Cr), Cho/Cr) had similar distinction abilities between 1.5T and 3.0T scanner, denoting both 1.5T and 3.0T scanners were provided with similar sensitivities and reproducibilities for metabolites detection. Moreover, the metabolite ratios of the same healthy volunteers were not statistically different between 1.5T and 3.0T scanners, except for NAA/Cho (p < 0.05).
conclusions1.5T and 3.0T scanners may have comparable diagnostic potential when
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.