ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Clinical High-Resolution Imaging of the Inner Ear by Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 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.
- Role of the Ear in Meningitis: A Narrative Review of Neuroimaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intracochlear Imaging Using IVUS and OFDI: A Cadaveric Feasibility Study.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeImaging of the delicate inner ear morphology has become more and more precise owing to the rapid progress in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, in clinical practice, the interpretation of imaging findings is hampered by a limited knowledge of anatomical details which are frequently obscured by artifacts. Corresponding review articles are as rare in journals as they are in reference books. This shortness prompted us to perform a direct comparison of imaging with anatomical whole-mount sections as a reference. It was the intention of this paper to compare the microscopic anatomy of a human inner ear as shown on anatomical whole-mount sections with high-resolution MRI and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Both are available in clinical routine and depict the structures with maximum spatial resolution. It was also a goal of this work to clarify if structures that were observed on MRI in a regular manner correlate with factual inner ear anatomy or correspond with artifacts typical for imaging.
methodsA fresh human anatomical specimen was examined on a clinical 3-Tesla MRI scanner using a dedicated surface coil. The same specimen was then studied with CBCT. In each imaging modality, high-resolution 3D data sets which enabled multiplanar reformatting were created. In the second step, anatomical whole-mount sections of the specimen were cut and stained. This process enabled a direct comparison of imaging with anatomical conditions.
resultsClinical MRI was able to depict the inner ear with remarkable anatomical precision. Strongly T2-weighted imaging protocols are exquisitely capable of showing the fluid-filled components of the inner ear. The macular organs, ampullar crests and cochlear aqueduct were clearly visible. Truncation artifacts are prone to be confused with the delicate membrane separating the endolymphatic from the perilymphatic compartment. However, it was not possible to directly depict this borderline.
conclusionsWith the maximum resolution of magnetic resonance tomography, commonly used in everyday clinical practice, even the smallest details of the inner ear structures can be reliably displayed. However, it is important to distinguish between truncation artifacts and true anatomical structures. Therefore, this study can be useful as a reference for image analysis.
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.