ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Systematic evaluation of adhesives for implant fixation in multimodal functional brain MRI.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveInvasive multimodal fMRI in rodents is often compromised by susceptibility artifacts from adhesives used to secure cranial implants. We hypothesized that adhesive type, shape, and field strength significantly affect susceptibility artifacts, and systematically evaluated various adhesives. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-one adhesives were applied in constrained/unconstrained geometries and imaged with T2*-weighted EPI at 7.0 and 9.4 T to assess artifact depths. Spherical and flat patch shapes, both unconstrained geometries, were compared for artifact depth in vitro and in vivo. Adhesion strength was assessed on post-mortem mouse crania. Finally, an integrative scoring system rated adhesive properties, including artifact depth, handling, and adhesion strength.
resultsSusceptibility artifacts were two times larger at 9.4 than at 7.0 T (p < 0.001), strongest at the patch edges, and deeper with spherical than flat patches (p < 0.05). Artifact size depended more on shape and volume after curing than adhesive type. Our integrative scoring system showed resins, bonding agents, and acrylics offered the best overall properties, while silicones and cements were less favorable. DISCUSSION: Adhesive selection requires balancing handling, curing time, strength, and artifact depth. To minimize artifacts, adhesives should be applied in a spread-out, flat and thin layer. Our integrative scoring system supports classification of future classes of adhesives.
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.