ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Background phase induced steady-state effects in velocity quantification using phase-contrast MRI.
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 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.
- Background phase induced steady-state effects in velocity quantification using phase-contrast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFlow quantification using phase-contrast (PC) MRI is based on steady-state gradient echo (GRE) sequences and is hampered by spatially varying background phase offsets. The purpose of this work was to investigate the effect of steady-state disruptions during PC-MRI GRE sequences on these background phases. Based on these findings, a specific sequence and timing is suggested, and caution is expressed when using typical correction algorithms.
methodsSteady-state responses in stationary tissue were investigated in different prospectively triggered through-plane phase-contrast MRI sequence. Different spoiling methods (gradient spoiling/FISP versus gradient+RF spoiling/FLASH) and interleaving of flow encoding gradients (every TR vs. every ECG cycle) were investigated using simulations, in phantoms and in vivo. Additionally, the effect of relaxation times on the phase offsets was simulated and measured. The impact on image- and phantom-based background phase correction was studied.
resultsGood agreement between simulation and phantom measurements were observed. Different sequences lead to different spatiotemporal and tissue dependent background phases. Average flow rates in the popliteal artery were over- and underestimated for ECG-interleaved and TR-interleaved FISP acquisitions compared to FLASH, respectively.
conclusionBackground phase measurements are influenced by steady-state effects leading to potentially false background phase quantification. Current background phase correction methods cannot correct for the disturbance.
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.