Magnetic resonance imaging enhanced by superparamagnetic iron oxide particles: Usefulness for distinguishing between focused ultrasound‐induced blood–brain barrier disruption and brain hemorrhage
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To investigate the usefulness of a fully flow‐compensated heavy T2*‐weighted imaging enhanced by superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles for distinguishing between focused ultrasound‐induced disruption of blood–brain barrier (BBB) and brain hemorrhage. Materials and Methods: Focused ultrasound (frequency: 1.5 MHz) was used to induce disruption of the BBB in 39 rats. Two T2*‐weighted images were obtained before and after SPIO administration. Preenhanced T2*‐weighted images were used to detect hemorrhage. Detection of BBB disruption was performed on SPIO‐enhanced images. Thirty‐four rats were sacrificed after magnetic resonance (MR) scanning for histological confirmation of brain lesions. Theremaining five animals were followed up for 35 days. Prussian blue staining was performed on histological sections to detect SPIO particles in the brain. Results: After SPIO injection the areas of BBB disruption in rat brain were significantly enlarged. The area of mismatch between the T2*‐weighted images indicated a safe region where BBB opening occurred without hemorrhagic complications. In the longitudinal study, removal of SPIO occurred at a faster rate in hemorrhagic areas, albeit being closer to that occurring in the liver. The presence of SPIO was confirmed by Prussian blue staining in brain parenchyma and capillary endothelial cells in areas of BBB disruption. Conclusion: T2*‐weighted images—either with and without SPIO enhancement—may differentiate focused ultrasound‐induced BBB disruption from brain hemorrhage. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;29:31–38. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For non-phagocytic cells like stem cells, cationic materials such as poly-L-lysine or protamine are typically employed to increase the otherwise very low SPION uptake.
“In case of phagocytes, like macrophages, this is not needed, but for non-phagocytic cells, like stem cells, cationic materials such as poly-L-lysine or protamine are typically employed to increase the otherwise very low SPION uptake [254].”
From Iron oxide nanoparticles: Diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications (2019) · cites this paper as [254]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Non-invasive opening of BBB by focused ultrasound
Hynynen, K., McDannold, N., Vykhodtseva, N., & Jolesz, F. A. (2003) · Brain Edema XII · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0651-8_113 · Cited by 156 · cited 1× · see citing works
“First, opening of the BBB following sonication is a transient phenomenon and recovers after several hours (2).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Iron oxide nanoparticles: Diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications
Dadfar, S. M., Roemhild, K., Drude, N. I., von Stillfried, S., Knüchel, R., Kiessling, F., & Lammers, T. (2019) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2019.01.005 · Cited by 1,181 · see citing works
Fan, C.-H., Ting, C.-Y., Lin, H.-J., Wang, C.-H., Liu, H.-L., Yen, T.-C., & Yeh, C.-K. (2013) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.01.099 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Wang, J., Li, Z., Pan, M., Fiaz, M., Hao, Y., Yan, Y., Sun, L., & Yan, F. (2022) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2022.114539 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Liu, H., Hsu, P., Chu, P., Wai, Y., Chen, J., Shen, C., Yen, T., & Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Chang Gung University (TW)
- Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Jiun‐Jie
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12-18
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-38
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2017733892
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Council (NSC-95-2221-E-182-034-MY3)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
- Keywords
- superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, focused ultrasound, blood-brain barrier disruption, cerebral hemorrhage, T2-weighted imaging, flow compensation, Prussian blue staining, capillary endothelial cells, bleeding complications, rat model
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Blood-Brain Barrier, Cerebral Hemorrhage, Contrast Media, Ferric Compounds, Image Enhancement, Magnetics, Male, Sonication, Ultrasonography, Ultrasonic Therapy, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats
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
