ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Impact of simultaneous exposure to RF and gradient electromagnetic fields on implant MR safety labeling.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the additional occupational risk for workers with orthopedic implants in MRI settings.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Validating Numerical Simulations to Support Experimental Testing of MRI Gradient-Induced Heating of Passive Implants.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of simultaneous exposure to RF and gradient electromagnetic fields on implant MR safety labeling.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether heating contributions produced by radiofrequency (RF) and gradient fields superpose sufficiently at the worst-case locations to justify their simultaneous consideration in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) implant safety labeling. THEORY AND
methodsSix implant models were positioned in an ASTM phantom and realistically implanted in two anatomical human models, and exposed to gradient and RF fields at 64 MHz and 128 MHz. The simulations with the anatomical body models considered different axial exposure landmarks inside the RF and gradient body coils. The exposures were scaled to represent two sets of scenarios: either limited by the implant's MR conditional labeling to a fixed peak temperature rise, or representing an EPI or TrueFISP examination with clinically relevant parameters, where the implant label is not limiting.
resultsThe temperature enhancement due to the combined RF and gradient sources, evaluated with respect to the maximum values obtained separately, depends on the implant, pulse sequence, and exposure landmark. A maximum relative enhancement of about 65% was found in the ASTM phantom, and maximum absolute enhancements above 0.3 K were found in anatomical models with realistic pulse sequences.
conclusionThere are clinically relevant MR examination scenarios where the maximum heating contributions produced by RF and gradient fields combine, enhancing the local peak temperature increase beyond that obtained from either assessment alone. The results prove to be useful for defining safety margins on the maximum allowable temperature increase, avoiding the requirement of a combined gradient coil and RF test.
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.