Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

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

Probing different perfluorocarbons for in vivo inflammation imaging by 19F MRI: image reconstruction, biological half‐lives and sensitivity

Jacoby, Christoph, Temme, Sebastian, Mayenfels, Friederike, Benoit, Nicole, Krafft, Marie Pierre, Schubert, Rolf, Schrader, Jürgen, Flögel, Ulrich·2014·NMR in Biomedicine

Abstract

Inflammatory processes can reliably be assessed by 19 F MRI using perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which is primarily based on the efficient uptake of emulsified PFCs by circulating cells of the monocyte–macrophage system and subsequent infiltration of the 19 F‐labeled cells into affected tissue. An ideal candidate for the sensitive detection of fluorine‐loaded cells is the biochemically inert perfluoro‐15‐crown‐5 ether (PFCE), as it contains 20 magnetically equivalent 19 F atoms. However, the biological half‐life of PFCE in the liver and spleen is extremely long, and so this substance is not suitable for future clinical applications. In the present study, we investigated alternative, nontoxic PFCs with predicted short biological half‐lives and high fluorine content: perfluorooctyl bromide (PFOB), perfluorodecalin (PFD) and trans‐bis‐perfluorobutyl ethylene (F‐44E). Despite the complex spectra of these compounds, we obtained artifact‐free images using sine‐squared acquisition‐weighted three‐dimensional chemical shift imaging and dedicated reconstruction accomplished with in‐house‐developed software. The signal‐to‐noise ratio of the images was maximized using a Nutall window with only moderate localization error. Using this approach, the retention times of the different PFCs in murine liver and spleen were determined at 9.4 T. The biological half‐lives were estimated to be 9 days (PFD), 12 days (PFOB) and 28 days (F‐44E), compared with more than 250 days for PFCE. In vivo sensitivity for inflammation imaging was assessed using an ear clip injury model. The alternative PFCs PFOB and F‐44E provided 37% and 43%, respectively, of the PFCE intensities, whereas PFD did not show any signal in the ear model. Thus, for in vivo monitoring of inflammatory processes, PFOB emerges as the most promising candidate for possible future translation of 19 F MR inflammation imaging to human applications. Copyright © 2013 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/nbm.3059

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 158

Metadata

Authors
Jacoby, C., Temme, S., Mayenfels, F., Benoit, N., Krafft, M. P., Schubert, R., Schrader, J., & Flögel, U.
Venue
NMR in Biomedicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-12-19
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
261-271
ISSN
  • 0952-3480 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1492
OpenAlex
W1890186121
Cited by
158
References
1
FWCI
7.37
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: Probing different perfluorocarbons for in vivo inflammation imaging by 19F MRI: image reconstruction, biological half‐lives and sensitivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/nbm.3059
The paper
Jacoby, C., Temme, S., Mayenfels, F., Benoit, N., Krafft, M. P., Schubert, R., Schrader, J., & Flögel, U. (2014). Probing different perfluorocarbons for in vivo inflammation imaging by 19F MRI: image reconstruction, biological half‐lives and sensitivity. NMR in Biomedicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3059

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.