ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
T1 and T2 measurements across multiple 0.55T MRI systems using open-source vendor-neutral sequences.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variable flip angle T1 mapping for quantitative liver imaging at 0.55 T.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Reproducibility of T2 relaxation time mapping in a phantom and human knee articular cartilage.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Harmonization in magnetic resonance imaging: A survey of acquisition, image-level, and feature-level methods.Medical image analysis · 2026Review
- Feasibility of tagged MRI at 0.55 T.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Vendor-agnostic 3D multiparametric relaxometry improves cross-platform reproducibility.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- MRI acquisition and reconstruction cookbook: recipes for reproducibility, served with real-world flavour.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 2): T1 and T2 standardization in the ISMRM/NIST MR phantom.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Rethinking MRI as a measurement device through modular and portable pipelines.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Repeatability and reproducibility of rapid TImaging 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare T1 and T2 measurements across commercial and prototype 0.55T MRI systems in both phantom and healthy participants using the same vendor-neutral pulse sequences, reconstruction, and analysis methods.
methodsStandard spin echo measurements and abbreviated protocol measurements of T1, B1, and T2 were made on two prototype 0.55 T systems and two commercial 0.55T systems using an ISMRM/NIST system phantom. Additionally, five healthy participants were imaged at each system using the abbreviated protocol for T1, B1, and T2 measurement. The phantom measurements were compared to NMR-based reference measurements to determine accuracy, and both phantom and in vivo measurements were compared to assess reproducibility and differences between the prototype and commercial systems.
resultsVendor-neutral sequences were implemented across all four systems, and the code for pulse sequences and reconstruction is freely available. For participants, there was no difference in the mean T1 and T2 relaxation times between the prototype and commercial systems. In the phantom, there were no significant differences between the prototype and commercial systems for T1 and T2 measurements using the abbreviated protocol.
conclusionQuantitative T1 and T2 measurements at 0.55T in phantom and healthy participants are not statistically different across the prototype and commercial systems.
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.