Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40634776›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025

Tobias Lindner, Adrian Konstantin Luyken, Chris Lappe, Oliver Stachs, Thoralf Niendorf, Matthias Lütgens, Stefan Polei, Brigitte Vollmar, Andreas Buettner, Sönke Langner and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Tobias Lindner *Core Facility Multimodal Small Animal Imaging, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Adrian Konstantin Luyken *Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Chris LappeInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Oliver StachsDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Thoralf NiendorfBerlin Ultrahigh Field Facility (B.U.F.F.), Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias LütgensInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Stefan PoleiInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Brigitte VollmarRudolf-Zenker-Institute for Experimental Surgery, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Andreas BuettnerInstitute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Sönke LangnerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Marc-André WeberInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Ebba BellerInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany. ebba.beller@med.uni-rostock.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5268-151X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 517901233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferentiation between saltwater and freshwater immersion as well as estimating the corpse's time in water can be challenging. We aimed to establish and examine the feasibility of a novel approach based on sodium magnetic resonance imaging (

methodsEnucleated porcine eyes were immersed in NaCl 0.9%, NaCl 3.0%, NaCl 5.85%, distilled water (DW) or lake water (LW) at different time intervals, followed by

resultsAfter 6 h of immersion, a significant difference in vitreous body (VB) sodium concentration was found for NaCl 5.85% versus DW or LW (p ≤ 0.019). After 24 and 48 h of immersion, a significant difference in VB sodium concentration was found for NaCl 5.85% versus DW, LW, NaCl 3.0% or NaCl 0.9%, as well as for NaCl 3.0% versus DW, LW or NaCl 0.9% (p ≤ 0.001). After 24 h of immersion, lens sodium concentration showed a significant difference for NaCl 5.85% versus DW, LW, NaCl 3.0% or NaCl 0.9% (p ≤ 0.009); after 48 h of immersion, for NaCl 5.85% versus DW, LW, NaCl 3.0% or NaCl 0.9% (p ≤ 0.001), as well as for NaCl 3.0% versus DW, LW or NaCl 0.9% (p ≤ 0.007). For VB, sodium concentration changes over immersion time, and exponential curves were fitted to the data.

conclusionUsing RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Although not a substitute for autopsy, KEY POINTS: Postmortem porcine eyes with different immersion times in saltwater and freshwater. Noninvasive quantification of vitreous body and lens sodium concentrations with

Indexed as

EyeFresh WaterMagnetic Resonance ImagingSeawaterSodiumAnimalsImmersionSodium IsotopesSwineSodiumSodium IsotopesDrowningForensic medicineLens (crystalline)Post-mortem examinationVitreous body

Identifiers

PMID40634776
PMCPMC12240899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.