ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Adult brain T1 and T2 values measured at 3 T using magnetic resonance fingerprinting with phantom validation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. 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.
- Adult brain T1 and T2 values measured at 3 T using magnetic resonance fingerprinting with phantom validation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor clinical implementation of quantitative MRI methods, it is necessary to understand the expected range of nominally healthy tissue properties. Additionally, to compare measurements across MRI systems or provide guidance for clinically meaningful change, these nominally healthy measurements should be completed with phantom validation of the measurement system and method. PURPOSE: To measure T1 and T2 relaxation times on 20 participants using magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) concurrently with phantom measurements for validation.
methodsT1 and T2 relaxation times were measured at 3 T using MRF on 20 participants. To assess longitudinal reproducibility, a phantom was scanned in the same session as each in vivo measurement, which resulted in 11 phantom measurements over the 99-day study duration. At each imaging session, phantom and in vivo test-retest measurements were made. Phantom test-retest repeatability was evaluated along with longitudinal reproducibility. Additionally, in vivo test-retest repeatability was evaluated for brain regions of various sizes, and mean in vivo measurements for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), gray matter (GM), and white matter (WM) are presented.
resultsOver the study duration, phantom measurements were repeatable and reproducible, and no changes were detected in the MRF measurement of T1 and T2 relaxation times on this system. For in vivo measurements, test-retest variation for CSF, GM, and WM was 2.3%, 0.31%, 0.57% for T1 and 8.3%, 1.9%, 1.3% for T2. We observed that the test-retest variation of T1 and T2 measurements increased as the segmented volume fell below 1 cm
conclusionsPhantom measurements characterized the measurement accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility throughout the study. The MRF T1 and T2 measurements of normal brain tissues at 3 T are validated through concurrent phantom measurements, and mean values were reported for each tissue. This study provides one data point to answer the question of how often phantom quality assessment must be done in tandem with in vivo measurements.
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.