000130875 001__ 130875
000130875 005__ 20240228145555.0
000130875 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0187528
000130875 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:29125850
000130875 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:28810326
000130875 037__ $$aDKFZ-2017-05951
000130875 041__ $$aeng
000130875 082__ $$a500
000130875 1001_ $$00000-0003-0733-775X$$aLaader, Anja$$b0
000130875 245__ $$a1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: A comparative study.
000130875 260__ $$aLawrence, Kan.$$bPLoS$$c2017
000130875 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000130875 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000130875 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1525778833_20626
000130875 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000130875 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000130875 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000130875 520__ $$aThe aim of this study was to investigate and compare the feasibility as well as potential impact of altered magnetic field properties on image quality and potential artifacts of 1.5 Tesla, 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla non-enhanced abdominal MRI.Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging of the upper abdomen was performed in 10 healthy volunteers on a 1.5 Tesla, a 3 Tesla and a 7 Tesla MR system. The study protocol comprised a (1) T1-weighted fat-saturated spoiled gradient-echo sequence (2D FLASH), (2) T1-weighted fat-saturated volumetric interpolated breath hold examination sequence (3D VIBE), (3) T1-weighted 2D in and opposed phase sequence, (4) True fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence (TrueFISP) and (5) T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequence. For comparison reasons field of view and acquisition times were kept comparable for each correlating sequence at all three field strengths, while trying to achieve the highest possible spatial resolution. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were tested for significant differences.While 1.5 and 3 Tesla MRI revealed comparable results in all assessed features and sequences, 7 Tesla MRI yielded considerable differences in T1 and T2 weighted imaging. Benefits of 7 Tesla MRI encompassed an increased higher spatial resolution and a non-enhanced hyperintense vessel signal at 7 Tesla, potentially offering a more accurate diagnosis of abdominal parenchymatous and vasculature disease. 7 Tesla MRI was also shown to be more impaired by artifacts, including residual B1 inhomogeneities, susceptibility and chemical shift artifacts, resulting in reduced overall image quality and overall image impairment ratings. While 1.5 and 3 Tesla T2w imaging showed equivalently high image quality, 7 Tesla revealed strong impairments in its diagnostic value.Our results demonstrate the feasibility and overall comparable imaging ability of T1-weighted 7 Tesla abdominal MRI towards 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla MRI, yielding a promising diagnostic potential for non-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA). 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla offer comparably high-quality T2w imaging, showing superior diagnostic quality over 7 Tesla MRI.
000130875 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$a315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)$$cPOF3-315$$fPOF III$$x0
000130875 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
000130875 7001_ $$aBeiderwellen, Karsten$$b1
000130875 7001_ $$aKraff, Oliver$$b2
000130875 7001_ $$aMaderwald, Stefan$$b3
000130875 7001_ $$aWrede, Karsten$$b4
000130875 7001_ $$0P:(DE-He78)022611a2317e4de40fd912e0a72293a8$$aLadd, Mark$$b5$$udkfz
000130875 7001_ $$aLauenstein, Thomas C$$b6
000130875 7001_ $$aForsting, Michael$$b7
000130875 7001_ $$aQuick, Harald H$$b8
000130875 7001_ $$aNassenstein, Kai$$b9
000130875 7001_ $$aUmutlu, Lale$$b10
000130875 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2267670-3$$a10.1371/journal.pone.0187528$$gVol. 12, no. 11, p. e0187528 -$$n11$$pe0187528 -$$tPLoS one$$v12$$x1932-6203$$y2017
000130875 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:130875$$pVDB
000130875 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$6P:(DE-He78)022611a2317e4de40fd912e0a72293a8$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b5$$kDKFZ
000130875 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vImaging and radiooncology$$x0
000130875 9141_ $$y2017
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bPLOS ONE : 2015
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0501$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ Seal
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0500$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bDOAJ
000130875 915__ $$0LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV$$2V:(DE-HGF)$$aCreative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)$$bDOAJ
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bThomson Reuters Master Journal List
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1040$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bZoological Record
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews
000130875 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5
000130875 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331$$kE020$$lMedizinische Physik in der Radiologie$$x0
000130875 980__ $$ajournal
000130875 980__ $$aVDB
000130875 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E020-20160331
000130875 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED