ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
No observation of DIANA signals in rats at 7.0 and 17.2 Tesla.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. 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.
- Suppression of Oscillation and Ghosting in RF-Spoiled Gradient-Echo-Based Dynamic Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Limitations of 2-dimensional line-scan MRI for directly measuring neural activity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, a new method was introduced to detect neuronal activity using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The method, referred to as DIANA, showed MRI signals with millisecond temporal resolution that correlated with local field potentials measured invasively in mice. Troublingly, attempts by other groups to detect the DIANA signals in humans at 7 Tesla and mice at 15.2 Tesla have failed. So far, attempts to reproduce DIANA in small rodents have focused on paradigms using whisker pad stimulation, which were expected to produce a 0.1-0.15% signal change. However, the Supplementary Material accompanying the original DIANA paper showed that visual stimulation produced a three times larger signal, which should be much easier to detect. Therefore, we attempted to find the DIANA signal in rats using a visual stimulation paradigm. Experiments were performed at 17.2 Tesla but also at 7.0 Tesla to see if the DIANA signal appears at a lower field strength where T2 is longer and BOLD contributions are reduced. In addition, simulations were performed to investigate the theoretical detectability of synthetic DIANA signals in noisy data. Although our data indicated that a 0.1% signal change would have been detectable, we did not observe a DIANA signal. We did observe neuronally driven hemodynamic signal variations that were much larger than the anticipated DIANA signal. The amplitude of these signal changes was relatively similar at 7.0 and 17.2 Tesla (0.7% vs 1.1%). Numerical simulations indicated, however, that the measured hemodynamic signal changes would not interfere with the detection of DIANA signals. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that measurements at higher field strength with improved SNR would have a better chance to detect the DIANA signal. Yet, we, among others, were unable to find it.
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.