ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Optimized analytical segmented method for improved intravoxel incoherent motion parameter extraction in low-perfused tissues.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relaxation Time Mapping of Early-Stage Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: An In Vivo Piglet Model Study.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026Article
- Optimized analytical segmented method for improved intravoxel incoherent motion parameter extraction in low-perfused tissues.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIntravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging of tissue perfusion and diffusion has limited signal in low-perfused tissues, which poses a challenge in measuring IVIM parameters. This work proposes an optimized analytical segmented (opAS) method for extracting IVIM parameters and compares its performance with prior segmented (S), oversegmented (OS), and analytical segmented (AS) fitting methods.
methodsThe four fitting methods were compared using numerical simulations and retrospective analysis of IVIM data of a piglet model of bone marrow ischemia. The simulations compared the accuracy and precision of the four methods for different combinations of IVIM perfusion-related parameters (D*, pseudo-diffusion coefficient; and f, pseudo-diffusion fraction) at a fixed molecular-diffusion coefficient (D). In vivo data from n = 11 piglets were analyzed using the four methods to compare their sensitivities in detecting lack of perfusion in ischemic versus perfused pairs of femoral heads.
resultsIn simulation, opAS had the lowest errors in estimating D, f, D*, and f × D* across all signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) levels, particularly in challenging parameter combinations of low f and D*. In the piglet model, all four IVIM fitting methods consistently found that D increased and f and f × D* decreased in the ischemic versus perfused femoral heads. However, D* was only consistently decreased in the ischemic versus perfused femoral heads using the AS and opAS methods.
conclusionThe opAS method more accurately estimates IVIM parameters than the S, OS, and AS approaches, particularly perfusion-related parameters (D* and f) in low-perfused tissues.
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.