The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ex vivo tissue‐type independence in proton‐resonance frequency shift MR thermometry
Abstract
The temperature sensitivity of the proton‐resonance frequency (PRF) has proven valuable for the monitoring of MR image‐guided thermal coagulation therapy. However, there is significant inconsistency in reported values of the PRF‐thermal coefficient, as measured from experiments encompassing a range of in vivo and ex vivo tissue types and experimental conditions. A method of calibrating the temperature dependence of the PRF is described and results are presented that indicate a tissue‐type independence. To this end, other possible mechanisms for variations in the PRF‐thermal coefficient are suggested, including physiological perturbations and volume magnetic susceptibility effects from geometry and orientation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Svedin, B. T., Payne, A., & Parker, D. L. (2016) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.25860 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, R. T. D., Hinks, R. S., & Henkelman, R. M.
- Venue
- Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 454-459
- ISSN
- 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2594
- OpenAlex
- W2158995414
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.91
- 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
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.
