Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Targeted nanoparticles for quantitative imaging of sparse molecular epitopes with MRI

Open access
Morawski, Anne M., Winter, Patrick M., Crowder, Kathryn C., Caruthers, Shelton D., Fuhrhop, Ralph W., Scott, Michael J., Robertson, J. David, Abendschein, Dana R., Lanza, Gregory M., Wickline, Samuel A.·2004·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Abstract

Before molecular imaging with MRI can be applied clinically, certain problems, such as the potential sparseness of molecular epitopes on targeted cell surfaces, and the relative weakness of conventional targeted MR contrast agents, must be overcome. Accordingly, the conditions for diagnostic conspicuity that apply to any paramagnetic MRI contrast agent with known intrinsic relaxivity were examined in this study. A highly potent paramagnetic liquid perfluorocarbon nanoparticle contrast agent (∼250 nm diameter, >90000 Gd 3+/particle) was imaged at 1.5 T and used to successfully predict a range of sparse concentrations in experimental phantoms with the use of standard MR signal models. Additionally, we cultured and targeted the smooth muscle cell (SMC) monolayers that express “tissue factor,” a glycoprotein of crucial significance to hemostasis and response to vascular injury, by conjugating an anti‐tissue factor antibody fragment to the nanoparticles to effect specific binding. Quantification of the signal from cell monolayers imaged at 1.5 T demonstrated, as predicted via modeling, that only picomolar concentrations of paramagnetic perfluorocarbon nanoparticles were required for the detection and quantification of tissue factor at clinical field strengths. Thus, for targeted paramagnetic agents carrying high payloads of gadolinium, it is possible to quantify molecular epitopes present in picomolar concentrations in single cells with routine MRI. Magn Reson Med 51:480–486, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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/mrm.20010

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 271

Metadata

Authors
Morawski, A. M., Winter, P. M., Crowder, K. C., Caruthers, S. D., Fuhrhop, R. W., Scott, M. J., Robertson, J. D., Abendschein, D. R., Lanza, G. M., & Wickline, S. A.
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-25
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
480-486
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
OpenAlex
W1967727706
Cited by
271
References
1
FWCI
15.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Targeted nanoparticles for quantitative imaging of sparse molecular epitopes with MRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mrm.20010
The paper
Morawski, A. M., Winter, P. M., Crowder, K. C., Caruthers, S. D., Fuhrhop, R. W., Scott, M. J., Robertson, J. D., Abendschein, D. R., Lanza, G. M., & Wickline, S. A. (2004). Targeted nanoparticles for quantitative imaging of sparse molecular epitopes with MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20010

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.