The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Microbubble Contrast Agent with Focused Ultrasound to Create Brain Lesions at Low Power Levels: MR Imaging and Histologic Study in Rabbits
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-based thermometry for predicting the onset and spatial extent of lesions produced by focused ultrasound combined with a microbubble contrast agent (Optison; GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wis) and to compare the resulting induced temperature increase and threshold for damage with those in studies performed without the agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experiments were approved by the animal care committee. Fifty-three locations in the brains of 15 rabbits were sonicated with various exposure parameters by using a 1.5-MHz focused ultrasound transducer. MR imaging was used to map the temperature rise and, along with light microscopy, to examine the lesions. Diameters of isotherms created from thermometry were compared with the resulting lesions by using Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression. The minimum acoustic power necessary for lesion creation was determined, and the apparent temperature threshold for damage was calculated with probit analysis. These thresholds were compared with prior work performed without the contrast agent. The heating induced with the microbubbles was compared with that in sonications performed without them by using a t test. RESULTS: The MR imaging-mapped temperature distributions matched the shape of the lesions. The diameters of isotherms correlated well with diameters measured at contrast material-enhanced MR imaging (mean difference between measurements, 0.0 mm +/- 0.5; R = 0.93). The temperature increase with microbubbles was statistically larger (P < .01) than for sonications performed without microbubbles. In some locations (mostly continuous wave exposures), damage was observed along the ultrasound beam path. The time-averaged acoustic power damage threshold was reduced by 91% for 10-second exposures when compared with earlier studies performed without microbubbles. The probability of producing lesions was 50% at a temperature increase of 5.9 degrees C, 5.5 degrees C lower than was observed earlier without the agent. CONCLUSION: MR imaging-based temperature measurements appeared to correlate with focused ultrasound-induced lesions in the brain when microbubbles were present, even though the temperature appeared to be below the threshold for thermal damage.
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
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
O’Reilly, M. A., & Hynynen, K. (2012) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.11111417 · Cited by 401
Self-citationOzdas, M. S., Shah, A. S., Johnson, P. M., Patel, N., Marks, M., Yasar, T. B., Stalder, U., Bigler, L., von der Behrens, W., Sirsi, S. R., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18059-7 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- McDannold, N. J., Vykhodtseva, N. I., & Hynynen, K.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-106
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2058150095
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.34
- 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: Microbubble Contrast Agent with Focused Ultrasound to Create Brain Lesions at Low Power Levels: MR Imaging and Histologic Study in Rabbits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2411051170
- The paper
- McDannold, N. J., Vykhodtseva, N. I., & Hynynen, K. (2006). Microbubble Contrast Agent with Focused Ultrasound to Create Brain Lesions at Low Power Levels: MR Imaging and Histologic Study in Rabbits. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2411051170
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.