ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Comparison study of quantitative susceptibility mapping with GRAPPA and wave-CAIPI: reproducibility, consistency, and microbleeds detection.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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.
- Integrated evaluation of Nigrosome 1 sign, neuromelanin-sensitive MR and iron deposition.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe compared quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) with wave-CAIPI 9 × (QSM_WC9 ×) with reference standard QSM with GRAPPA 2 × (QSM_G2 ×) in two MR scanners. We also compared detectability of microbleeds in both QSMs to demonstrate clinical feasibility of both QSMs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained from each subject. Healthy subjects were recruited to evaluate intra-scanner reproducibility, inter-scanner consistency, and inter-sequence consistency of QSM_G2 × and QSM_WC9 × at 2 MR scanners. Susceptibility values measured with volume of interests (VOIs) were evaluated. Patients who were requested for susceptibility weighted imaging were also recruited in this study to measure microbleeds on QSM_G2 × and QSM_WC9 × . The number of microbleeds was compared between two QSMs.
resultsTotal 55 healthy subjects (male 34, female 21, 38.3 years [23-79]) were included in this study. We investigated reproducibility and consistency of QSM_WC9 × by comparing reference standard QSM_G2 × in two MR scanners in this study, and high correlation (ρ, 0.93-0.97) and high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.97-0.99) were obtained. Sixty patients (male 30, female 30; age, 55.4 years [21-85]) were finally enrolled in this prospective study. The ICC of the detected number of microbleeds between QSM_G2 × and QSM_WC9 × was 0.99 (0.98-0.99).
conclusionQSM_WC9 × and reference standard QSM_G2 × in two MR scanners showed good reproducibility and consistency in estimating magnetic susceptibilities. QSM_WC9 × and QSM_G2 × were also comparable in terms of microbleeds detection with good agreement of raters and high ICC.
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.