ArticleEuropean radiology2026
5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence.
Article in European radiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare 5.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T in patients and healthy volunteers, so as to validate its clinical feasibility. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study included a patient cohort (348 consecutive patients undergoing upper abdominal MRI) and a healthy volunteer cohort (31 volunteers scanned on all three scanners). Two radiologists independently assessed image quality subjectively (5-point Likert scale: anatomical detail, artifacts, overall image quality, diagnostic confidence) and measured signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subjective and objective metrics were compared across field strengths using overall and pairwise comparisons.
resultsObjective metrics (left/right/mean liver SNR, muscle/spleen SNR, liver-spleen CNR) showed a significant gradient of 5.0 T > 3.0 T > 1.5 T in both cohorts (all p < 0.001). Subjectively, compared with 1.5 T and 3.0 T, 5.0 T received the lowest scores for cardiac motion artifact and liver signal uniformity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and showed greater distortion and ghosting artifacts on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, 5.0 T was significantly superior in anatomical detail, SNR, and overall image quality (all p < 0.05). In patients, 5.0 T also achieved the highest diagnostic confidence (p < 0.05). Results from healthy volunteers were largely consistent with those from the patient cohort.
conclusion5.0 T upper abdominal MRI, with a primary focus on liver imaging, is clinically feasible, offering superior anatomical detail, SNR, overall image quality, and diagnostic confidence over 1.5 T and 3.0 T, though cardiac motion artifacts, liver signal inhomogeneity on T2WI, and geometric distortion on DWI require further optimization. KEY POINTS: Question Is 5.0-T MRI superior to 1.5 T and 3.0 T for liver imaging, and does its diagnostic benefit differ between diseased and non-diseased livers? Findings 5.0 T provided significantly higher SNR, image quality, and diagnostic confidence than 1.5 T and 3.0 T, despite increased cardiac motion and liver signal inhomogeneity. Clinical relevance 5.0-T MRI significantly improves liver image quality and diagnostic confidence over 3.0 T and 1.5 T, supporting its clinical utility despite increased artifacts that require further optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803937What 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.