ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
3D MR Thermometry Using Bi-Directional Segmented EPI for Transcranial-Focused Ultrasound.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 3D MR Thermometry Using Bi-Directional Segmented EPI for Transcranial-Focused Ultrasound.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 evaluate the feasibility of replacing clinically utilized 2D thermometry with 3D segmented EPI-based thermometry with equivalent accuracy, precision, and scan time.
methodsA 3D segmented EPI (segEPI) trajectory was modified to allow readouts along both the forward and reverse direction for each phase encoding line, and the sequence was integrated into the existing clinical protocol. Focused ultrasound sonications were performed in a tissue-mimicking gelatin phantom with the clinical standard scan and the proposed scan across multiple repetitions. Accuracy, precision and extent of the measured heating was compared at varied levels of zero-filled interpolation. Non-heating in vivo brain scans were performed to evaluate phase drift and precision improvements from echo combination.
resultsA 3D segEPI thermometry was found to have high agreement with 2D clinical thermometry while providing greater knowledge of the extent of heating. Temperature limits of agreement remained below ±1°C for both the uncombined and combined-echo cases when zero-filled interpolation was performed to 0.5 mm in-plane voxel spacing or smaller. The full-width at half maximum of the heating distribution was found to be slightly higher (∼17%) for 3D segEPI, potentially due to uncorrected heating-induced chemical shift. Echo combination in segEPI is found to improve precision of temperature estimates.
conclusionsA 3D segEPI thermometry is shown to be a promising alternative to clinical 2D thermometry, with possibility of rapid integration into existing clinical workflows.
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.