ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Fetal MRI: Radiofrequency Safety Assessment at 3 Tesla.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early fetal MRI in the late first and early second trimester: a pictorial essay.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Potential Benefits of Ultra-High Field MRI for Embryonic and Fetal Brain Investigation: A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background3-T MRI can improve image quality of fetal imaging compared to 1.5-T MRI. However, concerns exist regarding increased local tissue heating at 3-T. PURPOSE: To assess fetal MRI radiofrequency (RF) safety at 3-T by comparing simulated tissue heating to 1.5-T (using constant RF exposure) and by simulating tissue heating at 3-T using RF exposures from clinical fetal examinations. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Seven voxelized anatomical pregnant body models (gestational age [GA] 30 ± 3 weeks [mean ± standard deviation], maternal body mass index [BMI] 27.8 ± 8.5 kg/m FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, 1.5-T, HASTE, VIBE, TRUFISP, EPI, DTI. ASSESSMENT: Simulated maternal and fetal peak and average SAR, temperature, and peak thermal dose were compared at 3-T and 1.5-T for 60 min 2 W/kg wbSAR using 7 body models and a 16-rung band-pass RF coil. Temperature and thermal dose were simulated in one body model using clinical wbSAR exposures at 3-T. STATISTICAL TESTS: Factorial analysis of variance was performed using 28 maternal and fetal temperature measurements from 7 body models to detect a difference between 3-T and 1.5-T. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsFor constant RF exposure, we found no difference between 3-T and 1.5-T in peak maternal (1.5-T:40.38 ± 0.21°C; 3-T:40.40 ± 0.20°C; p = 0.85), peak fetal (1.5-T:39.21 ± 0.17°C; 3-T:39.09 ± 0.16°C; p = 0.19), and average maternal (1.5-T:37.32 ± 0.05°C; 3-T:37.33 ± 0.04°C; p = 0.68) temperature. We observed significantly higher average fetal temperatures at 1.5-T (1.5-T:37.75 ± 0.06°C; 3-T:37.70 ± 0.05°C). For 3-T clinical RF exposures, simulated peak temperatures exceeded the recommended limits. However, the thermal dose was below the recommended limit. DATA
conclusionFor the same RF coil geometry, local heating was similar at 3-T and 1.5-T for constant RF exposure. Although realistic 3-T RF exposures could cause peak temperatures above the recommended limits, thermal dose was below the recommended limit. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.