ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
DICOM-Based Quantification of MRI Artifact from Auditory Implants: a Technical Note Comparing Bone-Conduction- and Cochlear Implants.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMRI in patients with auditory implants is limited by implant-related signal void, geometric distortion, and intravoxel dephasing. Artifact extent is often described qualitatively. We aimed to quantify MRI artifact burden from a novel transcutaneous bone-conduction implant (SentioTM) and to compare it with cochlear implant controls under routine, label-compliant 1.5 T clinical conditions.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed MRI examinations of patients with a SentioTM implant (n = 7) and cochlear implant controls (n = 5). All scans were performed at 1.5 T, the manufacturer-approved field strength for the SentioTM Ti implant, on the same scanner using routine transverse turbo spin-echo sequences (T2-weighted and T1-weighted; 5‑mm slice thickness). Artifacts were quantified slice-by-slice with a custom Python-based DICOM pipeline. The artifact-to-brain ratio (ABR, %) and maximum void area (cm
resultsSentioTM implants showed smaller and more confined artifacts. Median ABRmax was 1.1% [IQR 0.2] with a median maximum void area of 1.7 cm
conclusionQuantitative artifact assessment using ABRmax is feasible in routine 1.5 T MRI. Under identical protocol conditions, the SentioTM implant produced a smaller and more localized MRI artifact burden than the cochlear implant controls examined here. Routine turbo spin-echo imaging remained diagnostically useful outside the implant region.
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.