ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 5.0 T: quantitative and qualitative comparison with 3.0 T.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraindividual comparison of 3-T and 5-T gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for evaluating HCC: initial findings.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- 5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI techniques for brain imaging at 3T and 5T magnetic field strengths.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- AI-assisted compressed sensing and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for evaluating colorectal liver metastases in complex hepatic backgrounds: a prospective 5T MRI study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of renal and perirenal adipose tissue distribution at 5 T: a feasibility study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Application of AI-assisted compressed sensing in high resolution Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI during hepatobiliary phase at 5.0 T.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and performance of 5.0 T MRI in MR Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging compared to 3.0 T, focusing on detail visualization, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and image artifacts.
methodsA prospective study from May to October 2023 involved 20 healthy subjects and 19 with biliary dilation. Both groups underwent MRCP using 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners. The detail visualization capability of the biliary tree and the SNR of the images were quantitatively evaluated. Two experienced MRI diagnostic physicians assessed the image artifacts qualitatively on a scale of 1 to 5. The t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared the quantitative results of biliary visualization and SNR between 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing the level of image artifacts between the two scanners. The inter reader consistency was tested using Kappa test.
resultsIn both healthy subjects and those with biliary dilation, the 5.0 T group exhibited significantly higher numbers of biliary tree branches, along with greater total and maximum branch lengths, compared to the 3.0 T group (P<0.05). Although the maximum branch length was higher in the 5.0 T group among healthy subjects, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.053). No notable differences were observed in SNR and image artifact levels between the two groups across both field strengths (P>0.05).
conclusionsMRCP at 5.0 T offers superior biliary tree visualization compared to 3.0 T. The performance regarding SNR and image artifacts between the two is relatively comparable.
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.