Cited by 59Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsNMR spectroscopy and applicationsMRI in cancer diagnosis

Magnetic resonance fingerprinting – a promising new approach to obtain standardized imaging biomarkers from MRI

Open access
European Society of Radiology (ESR)·2015·Insights into Imaging

Abstract

Current routine MRI examinations rely on the acquisition of qualitative images that have a contrast "weighted" for a mixture of (magnetic) tissue properties. Recently, a novel approach was introduced, namely MR Fingerprinting (MRF) with a completely different approach to data acquisition, post-processing and visualization. Instead of using a repeated, serial acquisition of data for the characterization of individual parameters of interest, MRF uses a pseudo randomized acquisition that causes the signals from different tissues to have a unique signal evolution or 'fingerprint' that is simultaneously a function of the multiple material properties under investigation. The processing after acquisition involves a pattern recognition algorithm to match the fingerprints to a predefined dictionary of predicted signal evolutions. These can then be translated into quantitative maps of the magnetic parameters of interest. MR Fingerprinting (MRF) is a technique that could theoretically be applied to most traditional qualitative MRI methods and replaces them with acquisition of truly quantitative tissue measures. MRF is, thereby, expected to be much more accurate and reproducible than traditional MRI and should improve multi-center studies and significantly reduce reader bias when diagnostic imaging is performed. Key Points • MR fingerprinting (MRF) is a new approach to data acquisition, post-processing and visualization.• MRF provides highly accurate quantitative maps of T1, T2, proton density, diffusion.• MRF may offer multiparametric imaging with high reproducibility, and high potential for multicenter/ multivendor studies.

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 · 10.1007/s13244-015-0403-3

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
European Society of Radiology (ESR)
Corresponding author
European Society of Radiology (ESR)
Venue
Insights into Imaging
Published
2015-03-24
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
163-165
ISSN
1869-4101 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2615659422
Cited by
59
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7
FWCI
7.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Insights into Imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › NMR spectroscopy and applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
Keywords
magnetic resonance fingerprinting, quantitative MRI, T1 mapping, T2 mapping, proton density mapping, diffusion MRI, pattern recognition, imaging biomarkers, reproducibility, multicenter study, reader bias

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