ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2024
Signatures of microstructure in gradient-echo and spin-echo signals.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 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.
- SpinWalk: A Monte Carlo simulator for MR-signal formation in inhomogeneous tissue.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether the spatial scale and magnetic susceptibility of microstructure can be evaluated robustly from the decay of gradient-echo and spin-echo signals. THEORY AND
methodsGradient-echo and spin-echo images were acquired from suspensions of spherical polystyrene microbeads of 10, 20, and 40 μm nominal diameter. The sizes of the beads and their magnetic susceptibility relative to the medium were estimated from the signal decay curves, using a lookup table generated from Monte Carlo simulations and an analytic model based on the Gaussian phase approximation.
resultsFitting Monte Carlo predictions to spin-echo data yielded acceptable estimates of microstructural parameters for the 20 and 40 μm microbeads. Using gradient-echo data, the Monte Carlo lookup table provided satisfactory parameter estimates for the 20 μm beads but unstable results for the diameter of the largest beads. Neither spin-echo nor gradient-echo data allowed accurate parameter estimation for the smallest beads. The analytic model performed poorly over all bead sizes.
conclusionsMicrostructural sources of magnetic susceptibility produce distinctive non-exponential signatures in the decay of gradient-echo and spin-echo signals. However, inverting the problem to extract microstructural parameters from the signals is nontrivial and, in certain regimes, ill-conditioned. For microstructure with small characteristic length scales, parameter estimation is hampered by the difficulty of acquiring accurate data at very short echo times. For microstructure with large characteristic lengths, the gradient-echo signal approaches the static-dephasing regime, where it becomes insensitive to size. Applicability of the analytic model was further limited by failure of the Gaussian phase approximation for all but the smallest beads.
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.