ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Comparison of ectopic versus normal gray matter via quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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.
- Differences in iron content between gray matter heterotopia and normal gray matter.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gray matter heterotopia (GMH) involves the abnormal migration of cortical neurons into the white matter and is often associated with epileptic seizures. Although conventional magnetic resonance imaging only provides the anatomical details of GMH, this study investigated the potential differences between GMH and normal gray matter (NGM) using arterial spin labeling (ASL) and magnetic resonance image compilation (MAGiC) quantitative techniques. Methods: Retrospective data collection was conducted on 32 cases of GMH at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between October 2022 and October 2023. Patients underwent T1 brain volume (BRAVO), T2 weight imaging, ASL, and MAGiC sequences. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) values with postlabeling delays of 1.5 s and 2.5 s in ASL, along with T1, T2, and proton density values in MAGiC sequences, were measured and normalized against those of normal white matter. Paired-sample Results: The average CBF values of GMH with dual postlabeling delays (31.96 mL/100 g/min and 35.13 mL/100 g/min) were both significantly lower than those of NGM (52.69 mL/100 g/min and 56.93 mL/100 g/min) (P<0.001). After normalization with contralateral white matter CBF values, the difference remained significant (P<0.001). The differences in CBF values between GMH and NGM were not associated with the postlabeling delay (P=0.500). However, there were differences in T1 values between NGM and GMH before and after the normalization of MAGiC sequences (P<0.001), but no significant differences were observed in the T2 or proton density values before and after normalization (P>0.05). Conclusions: NGM and GMH demonstrate quantitative differences in the ASL and MAGiC sequences.
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.