ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Repeatability of 3D MR fingerprinting during scanner software upgrades.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (DCE-MRF) Improves Detection of Induced Vascular Perfusion Reduction in a Mouse Breast Cancer Model.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Vendor-agnostic 3D multiparametric relaxometry improves cross-platform reproducibility.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Open-source cardiac magnetic resonance fingerprinting.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 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
objectiveThis study aims to quantify the repeatability of a 3D Magnetic Resonance Fingerprinting (MRF) research protocol in the context of a scanner software upgrade. All of MRI assumes consistent hardware performance and raw data pre-processing on the acquisition side. Software upgrades can affect hardware specifications and reconstruction chain parameters. Understanding how vendor-provided software upgrades vary MRF-derived T1 and T2 values is crucial for its application in different settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight healthy volunteers were imaged with an in-house developed 3D MRF pulse sequence using a 3T scanner before and after a software upgrade (VA31A to VA50A, MAGNETOM Vida, Siemens Healthineers). Online MRF reconstruction using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) timeseries compression and B1+ correction was performed. The study involved test-retest repeatability assessment and a comparison of pre- and post-upgrade data based on automatically extracted T1 and T2 values from MNI-152 Harvard-Oxford Subcortical Structural Atlas regions.
resultsSignificant mismatches were found directly after the upgrade. However, after an information exchange with the vendor, the 3D-MRF sequence showed consistent repeatability in both intra-version test-retest scenarios and cross-version comparisons: DISCUSSION: The study shows the reliable performance of 3D MRF protocols across software upgrades is possible, but it also highlights the importance of detailed evaluation and vendor collaboration in ensuring consistency. These findings support the application of MRF in longitudinal studies and emphasize the need for systematic assessments following hardware or software modifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39499381What 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.