ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Energy performance of MRI systems: on-site validation and comparison with manufacturer declarations.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Green radiology (part 1): environmental sustainability and energy consumption in medical imaging, with perspectives from Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Responsible Stimulus Selection in Neuromarketing: A Critical Narrative Review and Normative Framework for Ethical, Sustainable, and Replicable Consumer Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrating Energy Efficiency into Healthcare Operations: A Discrete-Event Simulation Approach for Surgical Pathways.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the actual energy consumption of two generations of 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, quantify the benefits in terms of primary energy savings resulting from technological replacement, and compare field estimates of primary energy consumption with those reported in environmental product declarations (EPDs). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo 1.5-T MRI scanner models, the old model version and its new model replacement, were monitored using a power quality analyzer connected to the electrical cabinet. Electrical power consumption data were collected over 2-week periods, both before and after the scanner replacement. Primary energy consumption was projected over 10 years, and the resulting values were compared with those reported in the EPDs for the two scanners.
resultsOver 10 years, cumulative energy consumption is estimated to be 1,010.4 MWh for the new unit versus 1,206.7 MWh for the old unit, corresponding to a 16.3% reduction. Considering the range of European primary energy factors (PEFs), energy savings varied from 235.6 to 687.1 MWh. Comparison with EPDs revealed significant discrepancies (± 40%) depending on the national PEF used, demonstrating that EPDs can both overestimate and underestimate actual energy consumption.
conclusionReplacement of an old MRI model resulted in measurable energy savings, particularly in non-productive phases. However, EPDs do not always reflect clinical operation or the impact of national energy mixes. While energy efficiency is central to sustainable radiology, it should not be the sole driver for equipment replacement, which must remain primarily guided by clinical and diagnostic criteria. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For a radiology department focused on more sustainable practices, it is essential to have accurate data on the environmental performance of medical imaging equipment, which should not be based solely on EPDs, but on real data based on usage patterns and national energy mixes. KEY POINTS: Replacing the old MRI scanner reduced energy consumption by 16.3%, mainly due to lower use in non-productive modes. Over a 10-year operational period, the primary energy consumption savings varied from 235.6 to 687.1 MWh. A discrepancy emerged between EPD-reported and real-world measurements, highlighting the importance of on-site validation for sustainability assessments.
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.