ArticleNeuroradiology2026
MR elastography and perfusion MRI characterize distinct biomechanical and vascular features of meningiomas.
Article in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether MR elastography (MRE) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion MRI provide overlapping or complementary information in meningiomas using anatomically matched regions of interest (ROIs).
methodsFifty-five patients with histopathologically confirmed meningiomas who underwent preoperative 3-T MRE and DSC perfusion MRI were retrospectively analyzed. MRE-derived stiffness and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) were evaluated in whole-tumor, MRE-defined high-stiffness (local), and non-focal ROIs. Regional differences, histological subtype associations, stiffness-perfusion correlations, and the influence of calcification were assessed.
resultsMRE-derived stiffness was higher in the local than non-focal ROI (p < 0.001), whereas rCBV did not differ significantly (p = 0.274). MRE-derived stiffness and rCBV were not significantly correlated in the local, whole-tumor, or non-focal ROIs (ρ = 0.085-0.182; all p ≥ 0.183). Fibroblastic meningiomas showed lower local rCBV than meningothelial meningiomas (median, 4.01 vs. 9.87; p = 0.004), whereas MRE-derived stiffness did not differ significantly among histological subtypes (local p = 0.748). In the fibroblastic-meningothelial comparison, the stiffness effect size was small with a confidence interval spanning zero (r = - 0.126; 95% bootstrap CI, - 0.51 to 0.29). SWI-detected calcification was associated with lower rCBV but not MRE-derived stiffness.
conclusionPerfusion did not differ significantly between MRE-defined high-stiffness and non-focal regions, and no significant stiffness-rCBV association was detected across ROI types. Perfusion MRI nevertheless demonstrated histological subtype-related differences not observed with MRE-derived stiffness, suggesting that the two modalities provide different, potentially complementary information about meningioma biomechanical and vascular features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42891825What 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.