ArticleJournal of medical physics
Magnetic Resonance Thermometry of Focused Ultrasound Using a Preclinical Focused Ultrasound Robotic System at 3T.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Focused ultrasound (FUS) therapies are often performed within magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems providing thermometry-based temperature monitoring. Herein, MRI thermometry was assessed for FUS sonications executed using a preclinical system on agar-based phantoms at 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners, using the proton resonance frequency shift technique. Materials and Methods: Sonications were executed at 1.5T and 3T to assess the system and observe variations in magnetic resonance (MR) thermometry temperature measurements. MR thermometry was assessed at 3T, for identical sonications on three agar-based phantoms doped with varied silica and evaporated milk concentrations, and for sonications executed at varied acoustic power of 1.5-45 W. Moreover, echo time (TE) values of 5-20 ms were used to assess the effect on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and temperature change sensitivity. Results: Clearer thermal maps with a 2.5-fold higher temporal resolution were produced for sonications at 3T compared to 1.5T, despite employment of similar thermometry sequences. At 3T, temperature changes between 41°C and 50°C were recorded for the three phantoms produced with varied silica and evaporated milk, with the addition of 2% w/v silica resulting in a 20% increase in temperature change. The lowest acoustic power that produced reliable beam detection within a voxel was 1.5 W. A TE of 10 ms resulted in the highest temperature sensitivity with adequate SNR. Conclusions: MR thermometry performed at 3T achieved short temporal resolution with temperature dependencies exhibited with the sonication and imaging parameters. Present data could be used in preclinical MRI-guided FUS feasibility studies to enhance MR thermometry.
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.