ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 1): apparent diffusion coefficient standardization in a diffusion MRI 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diabetic Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiological Insights to Clinical Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Quantitative evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient in a large multi-unit institution.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Multi-center and multi-vendor evaluation study across 1.5 T and 3 T scanners (part 2): T1 and T2 standardization in the ISMRM/NIST MR phantom.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Marginal diffusion slope as a prognostic imaging biomarker of infiltrating phenotype in glioblastoma; A cancer imaging biomarker roadmap study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo validate multi-site and multi-vendor ADC measurements using the QIBA/NIST diffusion MRI phantom at room temperature. MATERIALS AND
methodsADC measurements were performed on 12 scanners (evenly split between 1.5 and 3 T) from three vendors at five sites and compared with reference values at room temperature. We adopted Pearson's correlation (r) and accuracy error for comparison with reference values; within scanner coefficient of variation (CV
resultsTemperature adjusted ADCs were well correlated with NIST reference values (r DISCUSSION: Despite using abdominal receive coils and room temperature measurements, all quantitative parameters were within literature findings. High accuracy, repeatability and precision within the renal physiologic range support the feasibility of scanner evaluation using QIBA standardization process for diffusion measurements in renal studies.
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.