ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Metrology for MRI: the field you've never heard of.
Review 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods for Uncertainty Quantification in Dictionary Matching to Advance Reliability of Quantitative MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- The MR quality landscape in Europe.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Domain Shift in Breast DCE-MRI Tumor Segmentation: A Balanced LoCoCV Study on the MAMA-MIA Dataset.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Summary from the 2025 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine workshop on body MRI: Unsolved problems and unmet needs.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Review
- Rethinking MRI as a measurement device through modular and portable pipelines.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Pooling quantitative MRI data: A multi-protocol study of healthy subcortical aging.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative MRI has been an active area of research for decades and has produced a huge range of approaches with enormous potential for patient benefit. In many cases, however, there are challenges with reproducibility which have hampered clinical translation. Quantitative MRI is a form of measurement and like any other form of measurement it requires a supporting metrological framework to be fully consistent and compatible with the international system of units. This means not just expressing results in terms of seconds, meters, etc., but demonstrating consistency to their internationally recognized definitions. Such a framework for MRI is not yet complete, but a considerable amount of work has been done internationally towards building one. This article describes the current state of the art for MRI metrology, including a detailed description of metrological principles and how they are relevant to fully quantitative MRI. It also undertakes a gap analysis of where we are versus where we need to be to support reproducibility in MRI. It focusses particularly on the role and activities of national measurement institutes across the globe, illustrating the genuinely international and collaborative nature of the field.
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.