Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume, and blood–brain‐barrier leakage with DCE‐MRI

Open access
Sourbron, Steven, Ingrisch, Michael, Siefert, Axel, Reiser, Maximilian, Herrmann, Karin·2009·Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/mrm.22005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC‐MRI) is the current standard for the measurement of Cerebral Blood Flow (CBF) and Cerebral Blood Volume (CBV), but it is not suitable for the measurement of Extraction Flow (EF) and may not allow for absolute quantification. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a methodology to measure CBF, CBV, and EF from T1‐weighted dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI (DCE‐MRI). A two‐compartment modeling approach was developed, which applies both to tissues with an intact and with a broken Blood‐Brain‐Barrier (BBB). The approach was evaluated using measurements in normal grey matter (GM) and white matter (WM) and in tumors of 15 patients. Accuracy and precision were estimated with simulations of normal brain tissue. All tumor and normal tissue curves were accurately fitted by the model. CBF (mL/100 mL/min) was 82 ± 21 in GM and 23 ± 14 in WM, CBV (mL/100 mL) was 2.6 ± 0.8 in GM and 1.3 ± 0.4 in WM. EF (mL/100 mL/min) was close to zero in GM (−0.009 ± 0.05) and WM (−0.03 ± 0.08). Simulations show an overlap between CBF values of WM and GM, which is eliminated when Contrast‐to‐Noise (CNR) is improved. The model provides a consistent description of tracer kinetics in all brain tissues, and an accurate assessment of perfusion and permeability in reference tissues. The measurement sequence requires optimization to improve CNR and the precision in the perfusion parameters. With this approach, DCE‐MRI presents a promising alternative to DSC‐MRI for quantitative bolus‐tracking in the brain. Magn Reson Med, 2009. © 2009 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.22005

Cites

39 of 39 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

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Sourbron, S., Ingrisch, M., Siefert, A., Reiser, M., & Herrmann, K.
Venue
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-15
Volume
62
Issue
1
Pages
205-217
ISSN
  • 0740-3194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-2594
DOI
10.1002/mrm.22005
OpenAlex
W1977355015
Cited by
276
References
39
FWCI
13.62
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

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.