ArticleCureus2026
Preparation and Evaluation of a Calcification Phantom for Mammary Gland MRI.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Microcalcification detection is vital for early breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival; however, no MRI phantom currently exists for parameter optimization. Therefore, this study aims to develop a breast MRI phantom that simulates calcifications. Methods A gelatin-sucrose mixture was prepared, with calcification samples placed on the same plane. MRI using multiple sequences and mammography were performed. Depiction ability was assessed based on contrast, visual evaluation, and statistical analysis. Results Among the 0.75-mm samples, eggshell and glass beads showed similar contrast on X-ray and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM). While calcifications ≥0.50 mm were identifiable on X-rays, 0.75-mm calcifications were visible on susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), and QSM. Scores obtained for eggshell on T1-weighted imaging (T1WI)/T2WI, chicken bone on T1WI/T2WI, and glass beads on SWI were significantly lower than those obtained on X-ray. Conclusion A microcalcification phantom enabling X-ray-MRI comparison was developed and validated as useful for MRI-based evaluation of calcifications.
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.