ArticleOsteoarthritis imaging2023
T1ρ and T2* Measurements in Small and Knee-Sized Magnetic Resonance Imaging Phantoms: Effect of Phantom Size and Position Relative to Isocenter.
Article in Osteoarthritis imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) parameters such as T1ρ and T2* characterize changes in cartilage matrix composition prior to cartilage loss. However, T1ρ and T2* measurement reliability in phantoms that mimic Methods: Phantoms were imaged 100 mm to the left and right of isocenter on five days using 3D MAPSS (T1ρ) and 3D gradient echo (T2*) sequences at 3T. Variance component analysis estimated the variability attributable to slice, side, vial, and day. Measurement error was quantified with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Paired t-tests evaluated systematic differences between the left and right imaging locations (p<.05). Results: Averaged across days the left-to-right phantom positions produced differences of 0.1ms (p<.0001) for T1ρ and -0.8ms (p<.0001) for T2* in the knee-sized phantoms, and differences ranged from -1.5±0.3ms (p=0.0004) to -0.4±0.4ms (p=0.045) for T1ρ and -3.3±2.5ms (p<.0001) to 2.3±1.5ms (p<.0001) for T2* in the small vial phantoms. The total variance for T2* was much less for the knee-sized phantom (0.9) than the small-vial pairs with the same concentration (7.0). Conclusions: This study revealed a position and phantom size dependence on qMRI parameters not reported previously. Future studies and quality control acquisitions should consider position within the MR scanner and phantom size in their design.
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.