ArticleOtology & neurotology open2024
The Use of Portable, Very Low-field (0.064T) MRI to Image Cochlear Implants: Metallic Image Artifact in Comparison to Traditional, Stationary 3T MRI.
Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and Tolerability of Performing Portable MRI for Neurological Disorders in an Outpatient Neurology Clinic: A Prospective Cohort.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess image artifact when imaging a cochlear implant (CI) with a conventional 3T MRI machine compared with a very low-field (0.064T) MRI. Patients: None. Intervention: Diagnostic study. Main Outcome Measure: Image artifact size associated with the CI affixed to an MRI phantom at very low-field 0.064T MRI versus 3T MRI. Results: The longest diameter of the image artifact was 125 mm for the 3T MRI and 86 mm for the 0.064T MRI, representing 45% longer image artifact generated in the 3T MRI. The actual volume of the imaging phantom was 1371 cm Conclusions: 3T MRI had better image quality. This result was not surprising given that larger magnetic field strength is known to provide higher resolution. There was 15% less image artifact generated in the very low-field MRI machine compared with a conventional 3T device. And there was also subjectively increased distortion of the imaging phantom at 3T MRI compared with the 0.064T MRI. With minimized safety concerns and a much lower cost than conventional 3T machines, very low-field scanners may find expanded clinical uses. This preclinical study explores the potential utility of very low-field MRI in scanning CI recipients.
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.