ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Cochlear implant artifact analysis in cranial MRI: effects of field strength and imaging sequence.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the artifacts produced by the cochlear implant (CI) CS-30A in nonimplanted human clinical trials under different magnetic resonance (MR) field strengths and imaging sequences. Methods: The CI was placed at a standardized surface projection location on the temporal region of 12 healthy subjects. Axial cranial MR scans were performed at both 1.5 T and 3.0 T field strengths using the following sequences: T1-weighted spin-echo (SE), T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE), and T2*-weighted gradient-echo (GRE). The maximum dimension of CI artifacts was measured, and the artifact area was quantified using both manual measurement and a deep learning-based automatic segmentation algorithm. The impact of CI artifacts on the visibility of brain anatomy was evaluated by radiologists. Results: Under both 1.5 T and 3.0 T MR scanning, GRE sequences exhibited significantly larger artifact maximum dimension and area than SE and FSE sequences ( Conclusion: GRE sequences produced a wider range of CI artifacts than SE and FSE sequences at both 1.5 T and 3.0 T. No significant difference in artifact size was observed between the two field strengths. The artifact areas on SE sequences showed high consistency between manual measurement and the deep learning-based automatic segmentation algorithm. Therefore, SE or FSE sequences should be prioritized over GRE for CI recipients, and both 1.5 T and 3.0 T are clinically feasible.
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.