ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Assessing measurement consistency of a diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) quality control (QC) anisotropy phantom.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Measurement Repeatability of a Novel Anisotropic Phantom for Advanced Diffusion MRI Models.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
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
objectivesWe evaluated a quality control (QC) phantom designed to mimic diffusion characteristics and white matter fiber tracts in the brain. We hypothesized that acquisition of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data on different vendors and over multiple repeated measures would not contribute to significant variability in calculated diffusion tensor scalar metrics such as fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe DTI QC phantom was scanned using a 32-direction DTI sequence on General Electric (GE), Siemens, and Philips 3 Tesla scanners. Motion probing gradients (MPGs) were investigated as a source of variance in our statistical design, and data were acquired on GE and Siemens scanners using GE, Siemens, and Philips vendor MPGs for 32 directions. In total, 8 repeated scans were made for each GE/Siemens combination of vendor and MPGs with 8 repeated scans on a Philips machine using its stock DTI sequence. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVAs to investigate repeat scan and vendor variances and 3-way ANOVAs with repeat, MPG, and vendor as factors.
resultsNo statistical differences (i.e., P > 0.05) were found in any DTI scalar metrics (FA, MD) or for any factor, suggesting system constancy across imaging platforms and the specified phantom's reliability and reproducibility across vendors and conditions. DISCUSSION: A DTI QC phantom demonstrates that DTI measurements maintain their consistency across different MRI systems and can contribute to a standard that is more reliable for quantitative MRI analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40120020What 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.