ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Magnetic resonance fingerprinting for the whole knee articular cartilage assessment using automated pipeline.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Reproducibility of T2 relaxation time mapping in a phantom and human knee articular cartilage.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a prototype MRF sequence in an automated pipeline for T2 extraction of knee cartilage, and to compare it to the same procedure with a conventional T2 mapping sequence. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventeen healthy volunteers and twenty patients with a focal cartilage damage ICRS grade I-III diagnosed via morphological MRI underwent knee MRI examination, including a prototype MRF sequence, a conventional multi-slice multi-echo (MSME) T2 mapping sequence and double-echo steady-state sequence (DESS). Automated cartilage segmentation with a subsequent automated pipeline for T2 extraction from both T2 maps was performed. The methods were compared via correlation analysis. Test-retest analysis was performed on 5 healthy volunteers and evaluated with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) phantom was scanned to compare the methods.
resultsOn average, the MSME method yielded T2 values 12.4 ms higher than MRF in the phantom and 17.3 ms and 16.3 ms higher in healthy volunteers and patients, respectively. The T2 values correlated very strongly in phantom (r = 0.998, p < 0.001) and in pooled in vivo analysis (r = 0.819, p < 0.001 and r = 0.865, p < 0.001 in volunteer and patient group, respectively), but moderately to strongly in global regions (femoral, patellar and tibial). The reliability of the pipeline was excellent for both methods (ICC from 0.823 to 0.958 for MRF and ICC from 0.863 to 0.932 for MSME).
conclusionsMRF T2 mapping in the knee cartilage in combination with automatic segmentation is feasible and reliable. KEY POINTS: Question Quantitative MRI suffers from long acquisition and post-processing times, reducing its feasibility for routine clinical use in knee articular cartilage applications. Findings T2 mapping via MR fingerprinting in combination with automatic segmentation and T2 extraction procedure in knee articular cartilage performs reliably and time-efficiently. Clinical relevance The proposed combination of methods is suitable for further investigation and characterization of cartilage disorders. The improved time efficiency and high accuracy, together with the elimination of the need for manual input, represent a significant advancement toward clinical translation.
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.