ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Effects of Motion in Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping for Musculoskeletal Imaging.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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.
- Ultrashort Echo Time Double Echo Steady-State MRI for Quantitative Conductivity Mapping in the Knee: A Feasibility Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Ultrashort Echo Time Quantitative Susceptibility Source Separation in Musculoskeletal System: A Feasibility Study.Journal of imaging · 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
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) is a powerful magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique for assessing tissue composition in the human body. For imaging short-T2 tissues in the musculoskeletal (MSK) system, ultrashort echo time (UTE) imaging plays a key role. However, UTE-based QSM (UTE-QSM) often involves repeated acquisitions, making it vulnerable to inter-scan motion. In this study, we investigate the effects of motion on UTE-QSM and introduce strategies to reduce motion-induced artifacts. Eight healthy male volunteers underwent UTE-QSM imaging of the knee joint, while an additional seven participated in imaging of the ankle joint. UTE-QSM was conducted using multiple echo acquisitions, including both UTE and gradient-recalled echoes, and processed using the iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) and morphology-enabled dipole inversion (MEDI) algorithms. To assess the impact of motion, datasets were reconstructed both with and without motion correction. Furthermore, we evaluated a two-step UTE-QSM approach that incorporates tissue boundary information. This method applies edge detection, excludes pixels near detected edges, and performs a two-step QSM reconstruction to reduce motion-induced streaking artifacts. In participants exhibiting substantial inter-scan motion, prominent streaking artifacts were evident. Applying motion registration markedly reduced these artifacts in both knee and ankle UTE-QSM. Additionally, the two-step UTE-QSM approach, which integrates tissue boundary information, further enhanced image quality by mitigating residual streaking artifacts. These results indicate that motion-induced errors near tissue boundaries play a key role in generating streaking artifacts in UTE-QSM. Inter-scan motion poses a fundamental challenge in UTE-QSM due to the need for multiple acquisitions. However, applying motion registration along with a two-step QSM approach that excludes tissue boundaries can effectively suppress motion-induced streaking artifacts, thereby improving the accuracy of musculoskeletal tissue characterization.
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.