ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2024
Clinical Evaluation of a 2-Minute Ultrafast Brain MR Protocol for Evaluation of Acute Pathology in the Emergency and Inpatient Settings.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2024. 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.
- Can multicontrast ultrafast brain MRI assist residents to triage intracranial emergencies with structured reporting?Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- NeuroMix with MRA: A Fast MR Protocol to Reduce Head and Neck CTA for Patients with Acute Neurologic Presentations.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Ultrafast Brain MRI at 3 T for MS: Evaluation of a 51-Second Deep Learning-Enhanced T2-EPI-FLAIR Sequence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Mapping artificial intelligence models in emergency medicine: A scoping review on artificial intelligence performance in emergency care and education.Turkish journal of emergency medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeThe use of MR imaging in emergency settings has been limited by availability, long scan times, and sensitivity to motion. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of an ultrafast brain MR imaging protocol for evaluation of acute intracranial pathology in the emergency department and inpatient settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-six adult patients who underwent brain MR imaging in the emergency department and inpatient settings were included in the study. All patients underwent both the reference and the ultrafast brain MR protocols. Both brain MR imaging protocols consisted of T1-weighted, T2/T2*-weighted, FLAIR, and DWI sequences. The ultrafast MR images were reconstructed by using a machine-learning assisted framework. All images were reviewed by 2 blinded neuroradiologists.
resultsThe average acquisition time was 2.1 minutes for the ultrafast brain MR protocol and 10 minutes for the reference brain MR protocol. There was 98.5% agreement on the main clinical diagnosis between the 2 protocols. In head-to-head comparison, the reference protocol was preferred in terms of image noise and geometric distortion (
conclusionsThe ultrafast brain MR imaging protocol provides high accuracy for evaluating acute pathology while only requiring a fraction of the scan time. Although there was greater image noise and geometric distortion on the ultrafast brain MR protocol images, there was significant reduction in motion artifacts with similar overall diagnostic quality between the 2 protocols.
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.