ArticleClinical neuroradiology2025
Clinical Performance of Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping in Cerebral Microbleed Detection Relative to 2D GRE.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo evaluate the potential overestimation of cerebral microbleed (CMB) burden by Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) compared to 2D gradient recalled echo (2D GRE), as well as the impact of increased motion degradation due to longer scan times, reduced CMB detection from skull-stripping failures, and the relative visibility of CMBs between techniques.
methodsSeventy-nine adult subjects with intracranial hemorrhage underwent same-session brain MRI including 2D GRE and multi-echo GRE for QSM processing, as part of routine clinical care. Images were reviewed by a neuroradiologist and trained research assistant for CMB detection, visibility rating, and anatomical distribution. Motion artifacts and areas of non-visualized brain due to skull-stripping were assessed. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for CMB counts, Mann-Whitney U test for motion assessment, and Fisher's exact testing for anatomical distribution patterns.
resultsQSM showed no significant difference in median CMB counts compared to 2D GRE (1 vs 2, p = 0.175) with strong correlation (r = 0.879, p < 1.65e-26). No significant difference in motion degradation was found between techniques (p = 0.7465). Skull-stripping failures affected only 2% of candidate CMBs, in 5 of 79 (6%) subjects. QSM-detected CMBs showed superior conspicuity (73 vs 33 better visualized lesions, p = 0.00975) with 261 rated equally visible. QSM identified 26 calcifications in 20 subjects, 25 of which were misclassified as CMBs on 2D GRE.
conclusionQSM demonstrates comparable or slightly lower CMB counts than 2D GRE while offering superior lesion conspicuity and ability to distinguish calcifications, supporting its potential clinical implementation for CMB detection.
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.