Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents

Laurent, Sophie, Elst, Luce Vander, Muller, Robert N.·2006·Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging

Abstract

This paper compares the physicochemical properties of six low molecular weight clinical complexes of gadolinium studied under identical experimental conditions. Magnevist®, Dotarem®, Omniscan®, ProHance®, MultiHance® and Gadovist® were investigated by oxygen‐17 relaxometry at different temperatures and by proton relaxometry at various magnetic fields, temperatures and media [pure water, zinc(II)‐containing aqueous solutions and HSA‐containing solutions]. Osmolality, viscosity and stability versus transmetallation by zinc(II) ions were added for a more comprehensive description. The relaxivities of the clinical formulations as measured in water are similar in the imaging magnetic field region, with a slightly better performance for MultiHance. This can be explained by a shorter distance between the hydrogen nuclei of the water molecule bound to the Gd 3+ ion and this paramagnetic centre. In contrast to the open‐chain complexes, all macrocyclic systems (Dotarem, ProHance and Gadovist) are insensitive to transmetallation by zinc ions. The stability of the open‐chain complexes with respect to transmetallation depends on the chemical structure of the ligand, with a better stability for MultiHance. The presence of human serum albumin has no significant effect on the proton relaxivity of Magnevist, Dotarem, Omniscan, ProHance and Gadovist but markedly increases the relaxivity of MultiHance because of a non‐covalent interaction with the protein. As a result, the relaxivity of MultiHance in HSA‐containing media of fixed concentration decreases with increasing concentration of the contrast agent. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cmmi.100

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Laurent, S., Elst, L. V., & Muller, R. N.
Venue
Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
128-137
ISSN
  • 1555-4309 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-4317
OpenAlex
W2136421454
Cited by
441
References
11
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cmmi.100
The paper
Laurent, S., Elst, L. V., & Muller, R. N. (2006). Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents. Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmmi.100

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.