ArticleInsights into imaging2025
FOCUS-MUSE DWI outperforms MUSE and FOCUS DWIs in orbital imaging quality and staging thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot (FOCUS), multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (MUSE) and FOCUS-MUSE diffusion-weighted images (DWIs) in orbital imaging quality and staging performance for the patients with thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). MATERIALS AND
methods67 TAOs underwent FOCUS, MUSE and FOCUS-MUSE DWIs. Qualitative (artifacts and geometric distortion, overall image quality, sharpness of boundaries) and quantitative parameters (geometric distortion ratio (GDR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, normalized ADC (nADC) value) were assessed. Additionally, nADC values of the extraocular muscles (EOMs) and mean nADC values were compared between active and inactive TAOs. Diagnostic performance was also evaluated.
resultsFOCUS-MUSE DWI exhibited significantly fewer artifacts and geometric distortion, superior overall image quality, enhanced sharpness of boundaries, higher SNR and lower GDR than MUSE and FOCUS DWIs (all p < 0.05). FOCUS-MUSE DWI showed significantly lower ADC values than MUSE (all p < 0.05) and FOCUS DWIs (all p < 0.05, except for that of superior EOM). The nADC values showed no significance among the three DWIs (all p > 0.05), except for that of the superior EOM. Furthermore, active TAOs showed higher nADC values than inactive TAOs in three DWIs (all p < 0.05). The mean nADC value of FOCUS-MUSE DWI (AUC, 0.890; sensitivity, 84.8%; specificity, 77.3%) performed better than that of MUSE (AUC, 0.713; sensitivity, 54.3%; specificity, 80.7%; p < 0.001) and FOCUS DWIs (AUC, 0.730; sensitivity, 47.8%; specificity, 90.9%; p < 0.001) in diagnosing active TAOs.
conclusionsFOCUS-MUSE DWI provides superior image quality and staging performance in assessing TAO than MUSE and FOCUS DWIs. We recommend its use for evaluating TAO patients in clinical practice. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding DWI shows superior image quality and staging performance for thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy than other echo-planar imaging-based modified sequences. KEY POINTS: The superiority among different echo-planar imaging-based modified DWIs in thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy remains unclear. Field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS-MUSE) DWI outperforms MUSE and FOCUS DWIs in imaging quality. Normalized apparent diffusion coefficient values derived from FOCUS-MUSE DWI improve staging performance of thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy.
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.