Literature DB >> 10464808

Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T.

A J Maubon1, J M Ferru, V Berger, M C Soulage, M DeGraef, P Aubas, P Coupeau, E Dumont, J P Rouanet.   

Abstract

To assess the effect of field strength on magnetic resonance (MR) images, the same healthy subject was imaged at three field strengths: 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Imaging was performed with three similarly equipped MR imagers of the same generation and from the same manufacturer. The same imaging sequences were used with identical parameters and without repetition time correction for field strength. Imaging was performed in four anatomic locations: the brain, lumbar spine, knee, and abdomen. Quantitative image analysis involved calculation of signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and relative contrast; qualitative image analysis was performed by four readers blinded to field strength. The results of all of the examinations were considered to be of diagnostic value. In general, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were lowest at 0.5 T and highest at 1.5 T; relative contrast was not related to field strength. At qualitative analysis, images obtained at 1.0 and 1.5 T were superior to images obtained at 0.5 T; qualitative differences were less important in locations where there is motion or high magnetic susceptibility differences between tissues (e.g., the spine and abdomen). However, excellent image quality was obtained with all three field strengths.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10464808     DOI: 10.1148/radiographics.19.4.g99jl281057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  16 in total

1.  Is the body-coil at 3 Tesla feasible for the MRI evaluation of the painful knee? A comparative study.

Authors:  G Lutterbey; K Behrends; M V Falkenhausen; M P Wattjes; N Morakkabati; J Gieseke; H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Muskuloskeletal MR imaging at 3.0 T: current status and future perspectives.

Authors:  Nicolae Bolog; Daniel Nanz; Dominik Weishaupt
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  High-resolution multi-voxel pattern analysis of category selectivity in the medial temporal lobes.

Authors:  Rachel A Diana; Andrew P Yonelinas; Charan Ranganath
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.899

4.  Hepatocellular carcinoma 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis patients: early magnetic resonance enhancement by gadoxetic acid compared with gadopentetate dimeglumine.

Authors:  Cai-Zhong Chen; Sheng-Xiang Rao; Ying Ding; Shu-Jie Zhang; Feng Li; Qiang Gao; Meng-Su Zeng
Journal:  Hepatol Int       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 6.047

Review 5.  [Low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Just less expensive or completely different?]

Authors:  Jürgen Hennig
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  Prognostic Imaging Biomarkers in Glioblastoma: Development and Independent Validation on the Basis of Multiregion and Quantitative Analysis of MR Images.

Authors:  Yi Cui; Khin Khin Tha; Shunsuke Terasaka; Shigeru Yamaguchi; Jeff Wang; Kohsuke Kudo; Lei Xing; Hiroki Shirato; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Distribution of Bone Contusion Patterns in Acute Noncontact Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Torn Knees.

Authors:  Sophia Y Kim-Wang; Melissa B Scribani; Michael B Whiteside; Louis E DeFrate; Tally E Lassiter; Jocelyn R Wittstein
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.

Authors:  Judith Enders; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Patrick Asbach; Gerd Diederichs; Christoph Wetz; Eberhard Siebert; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Applicability of deep learning-based reconstruction trained by brain and knee 3T MRI to lumbar 1.5T MRI.

Authors:  Nobuo Kashiwagi; Hisashi Tanaka; Yuichi Yamashita; Hiroto Takahashi; Yoshimori Kassai; Masahiro Fujiwara; Noriyuki Tomiyama
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2021-06-18

10.  Cardiac MRI Assessment of Mouse Myocardial Infarction and Regeneration.

Authors:  Yijen L Wu
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.