Literature DB >> 8851404

The impact of field strength on image quality in MRI.

B K Rutt1, D H Lee.   

Abstract

As clinical MRI has evolved, there have been numerous arguments for the use of different field strengths. Those favoring high magnetic field (1.5 T and above) include higher signal-to-noise ratio, capability for MR spectroscopy, and other forms of functional MRI, high speed imaging, and high resolution imaging. However, cost remains a significant limitation to the wider dissemination of high field MRI. There are definite cost advantages (capital, operating, siting) to the use of lower field MRI. Much debate has occurred over the past decade regarding the relative diagnostic benefits of high field MRI versus lower field MRI, but few randomized, controlled clinical trials have compared diagnostic accuracy of MRI at various field strengths. In this article, we review the physical principles of the field strength dependence of MRI in relation to image quality. The assessment of the importance of field strength in MR is incomplete without some analysis of diagnostic accuracy versus field strength. Such analysis is difficult to accomplish in an unbiased manner. The use of receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) analysis is probably the best available method to measure diagnostic accuracy of various imaging methods without bias. An ROC study of diagnostic accuracy of 0.5 T versus 1.5 T MRI, examining several common clinical categories, has recently been conducted at our institution. Results from this study demonstrate diagnostic equivalence between these two field strengths in at least two common clinical disease categories (MS and internal derangement of the knee). These results are discussed and related to results from previous field strength studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8851404     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880060111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  10 in total

1.  Development and initial evaluation of 7-T q-ball imaging of the human brain.

Authors:  Pratik Mukherjee; Christopher P Hess; Duan Xu; Eric T Han; Douglas A Kelley; Daniel B Vigneron
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-08-09       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Bimodal Fluorescence-Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agent for Apoptosis Imaging.

Authors:  Hao Li; Giacomo Parigi; Claudio Luchinat; Thomas J Meade
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 3.  [Low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Just less expensive or completely different?]

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

4.  Costs and effectiveness of a brief MRI examination of patients with acute knee injury.

Authors:  Edwin H G Oei; Jeroen J Nikken; Abida Z Ginai; Gabriel P Krestin; Jan A N Verhaar; Arie B van Vugt; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Cardiac balanced steady-state free precession MRI at 0.35 T: a comparison study with 1.5 T.

Authors:  Shams Rashid; Fei Han; Yu Gao; Kyunghyun Sung; Minsong Cao; Yingli Yang; Peng Hu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2018-08

6.  A Microfluidic Platform to design crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Nanoparticles (cHANPs) for enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Maria Russo; Paolo Bevilacqua; Paolo Antonio Netti; Enza Torino
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  The effect of the MR pulse sequence on the regional corpus callosum morphometry.

Authors:  Fahad H Alhazmi; Osama M Abdulaal; Abdulaziz A Qurashi; Khalid M Aloufi; Vanessa Sluming
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-02-07

8.  Portable magnetic resonance imaging of patients indoors, outdoors and at home.

Authors:  Teresa Guallart-Naval; José M Algarín; Rubén Pellicer-Guridi; Fernando Galve; Yolanda Vives-Gilabert; Rubén Bosch; Eduardo Pallás; José M González; Juan P Rigla; Pablo Martínez; Francisco J Lloris; Jose Borreguero; Álvaro Marcos-Perucho; Vlad Negnevitsky; Luis Martí-Bonmatí; Alfonso Ríos; José M Benlloch; Joseba Alonso
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-30       Impact factor: 4.996

9.  Task group 284 report: magnetic resonance imaging simulation in radiotherapy: considerations for clinical implementation, optimization, and quality assurance.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Eric S Paulson; Kiaran McGee; Neelam Tyagi; Yanle Hu; James Balter; John Bayouth
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Minimum Field Strength Simulator for Proton Density Weighted MRI.

Authors:  Ziyue Wu; Weiyi Chen; Krishna S Nayak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.