ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2025
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.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative MRI of pancreatic parenchyma in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm: association with risk stratification based on guideline features.European radiology · 2026Article
- Multimodal Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diabetic Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiological Insights to Clinical Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Reproducibility and quality assurance in MRI.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
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 assess multi-site and multi-vendor accuracy, and intra- and inter-scanner variability of T1 and T2 measurements using the ISMRM/NIST System MRI phantom at room temperature. MATERIALS AND
methodsT1 and T2 measurements were acquired using standardized NIST protocols on 13 scanners (1.5 T and 3 T) from 3 vendors at 7 sites and compared with reference values at room temperature. Pearson's correlation (r) and accuracy error were used for comparison with reference values, while inter-scanner agreement was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV%). Short-term reproducibility was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots and precision error. Generalized linear mixed models and post hoc tests (α = 0.05) were adopted to compare accuracy and precision across field strengths, vendors, and scanners. T2 measurements were corrected with StimFit toolbox for stimulated echo compensation.
resultsT1 and T2 measurements had excellent correlation with reference values at both field strengths. Stimfit significantly improved T2 accuracy in the renal range for 9 of 13 scanners. Short-term reproducibility (limits of agreement < 10%) and inter-scanner agreement were good (median CV < 7%) for both T1 and T2 values. Inter-scanner CV was < 5% in the renal range for both parameters. DISCUSSION: These findings support the need of scanner evaluation processes to ensure reliable T1-T2 measurements in multi-center MRI 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.