ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2026
Reducing scan time burden for neonatal MRI of pulmonary structure using FLORET UTE.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePulmonary MRI in neonates can be performed with quality comparable to radial 3D ultrashort echo time (UTE) MRI in significantly less time using a FLORET trajectory. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen NICU patients with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), age 40.9 ± 3.0 weeks at time of imaging, underwent MRI using Radial and FLORET UTE at 1.5 T. Pulmonary signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), lung density, and radiologist scoring of motion artifacts and image quality were compared across sequence types.
resultsFLORET UTE reduced scan time by ~ 75% (4:40 vs. 16:41 min.) while incurring only ~ 10-30% SNR reduction vs. radial (radial vs. 1-hub FLORET: 9.8 ± 2.8 vs. 9.0 ± 2.6, radial vs. 3-hub FLORET: 9.2 ± 3.0 vs. 7.7 ± 2.3), P < 0.05. Normalized lung density measurements were elevated in FLORET (radial vs. 1-hub FLORET: 0.42 ± 0.13 vs. 0.49 ± 0.14, radial vs. 3-hub FLORET: 0.49 ± 0.13 vs. 0.51 ± 0.13), P < 0.05. Accounting for scan time differences, normalized radial SNR was 19% and 16% lower than 1-hub and 3-hub FLORET, respectively (P < 0.05). No significant differences in radiologist scores were found.
conclusionFLORET UTE images are of quality comparable to radial UTE at 75% of the total scan time, the current state of the art, and have a much greater time-SNR efficiency with enormous benefit in the neonatal population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42133264What 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.