Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129051›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology experimental2025

Low-field and portable MRI technology: advancements and innovations.

Dmitrij Kravchenko, Muhammad Taha Hagar, Milan Vecsey-Nagy, Ildiko Kabat, Anne Groteklaes, Julian A Luetkens, Daniel Kuetting, Alexander Isaak, Tilman Emrich, Akos Varga-Szemes and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Portable Ultra-Low-Field MRI in Outpatient Neurology: An Examination of Clinical Performance and Patient Experience.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Dmitrij KravchenkoDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Muhammad Taha HagarDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Milan Vecsey-NagyDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Ildiko KabatDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Anne GroteklaesDepartment of Neonatology and Pediatric Intensive Care, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Julian A LuetkensDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Daniel KuettingDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Alexander IsaakDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Tilman EmrichDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Akos Varga-SzemesDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. musccvi@musc.edu.
Maria Vittoria SpampinatoDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) hardware and software have renewed interest in low-field MRI, challenging the long-held notion that such systems are inherently inferior to high-field counterparts. Traditionally dismissed due to lower signal-to-noise ratios and reduced image quality, low-field MRI was primarily relegated to cost-sensitive or resource-limited settings. However, modern low-field systems now integrate advanced reconstruction algorithms, refined imaging techniques, and improved hardware design, significantly narrowing the performance gap. In some scenarios, these systems offer distinct advantages, such as reduced susceptibility artifacts and improved safety of metallic implants. Their portability, lower operational costs, and reduced infrastructure demands make them especially valuable in point-of-care, remote, or intraoperative environments. This review examines the physical principles of low-field MRI, traces its technological evolution, and evaluates its current and emerging clinical applications. By highlighting both its strengths and limitations, we aim to clarify the growing role of low-field MRI in contemporary diagnostic imaging and underscore its potential in expanding global access to high-quality radiological care. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Low-field and portable MRI systems offer a cost-effective, accessible, and safer imaging alternative that may expand diagnostic capabilities in underserved, point-of-care, and intraoperative settings, thereby improving global access to essential radiologic services. KEY POINTS: Advanced image reconstruction improves low-field MRI image quality and diagnostic utility. Reduced susceptibility artifacts enhance imaging near metallic hardware and air-tissue interfaces. Low-field systems enable cost-effective, portable imaging in constrained clinical environments.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansPoint-of-Care SystemsCost-benefit analysisMagnetic resonance imagingPoint-of-care systemsResource-limited settingsSignal-to-noise ratio

Identifiers

PMID41129051
PMCPMC12549457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.