ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2026
A Magnetic Resonance-Compatible Fiberoptic Temperature Sensor for Measuring Focused Ultrasound-Induced Heating Without Artifacts.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis work evaluated a fiberoptic probe that meets all features and qualities that render it highly suitable for validating magnetic resonance temperature imaging measurements for magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) applications. The fiberoptic probe performance was compared with other probes with viscous heating artifact (VHA) effects in both a free-field and a controlled tissue-mimicking phantom environment with MRgFUS heating applied.
methodsThree fiberoptic probes with different coatings (nylon, ethylene tetrafluoroethylene and polyimide) and tip diameters (1, 0.75 and 0.14 mm) were evaluated in free-field and tissue-mimicking phantom environments at 1 and 3 MHz under a variety of acoustic intensity and probe incidence angles with respect to the acoustic field. Concurrently acquired temperature measurements from the fiberoptic probes and magnetic resonance temperature imaging were compared, with Bland-Altman analysis also performed.
resultsThe 0.14 mm diameter fiberoptic probe composed of a glass optical fiber and ethylene tetrafluoroethylene coating had negligible VHAs under all acoustic exposure conditions. Comparison of the magnetic resonance temperature imaging and fiberoptic temperature data resulted in a root mean squared error of 0.52°C and 0.47°C and a limit of agreement of 1.2°C and 1.0°C when tested in a 1 and 3 MHz acoustic field, respectively. This contrasts with the results from a 1 mm-diameter fiberoptic probe composed of a polymer optical fiber with a nylon coating that demonstrated a root mean squared error and limit of agreement of 15°C and 3.5°C, and 37°C and 7.5°C at 1 and 3 MHz, respectively.
conclusionThe thin-diameter (0.14 mm) glass fiberoptic probe monitored focused ultrasound-induced heating in the acoustic field without evidence of a VHA. The ability to perform calibration and accuracy studies in an active acoustic field will broaden the range of testing allowed, improving the calibration range of magnetic resonance imaging temperature sequences.
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.