Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 424

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MR Imaging Detection of Cerebral Microbleeds: Effect of Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging, Section Thickness, and Field Strength

Open access
Nandigam, R.N.K., Viswanathan, A., Delgado, P., Skehan, M.E., Smith, E.E., Rosand, J., Greenberg, S.M., Dickerson, B.C.·2009·American Journal of Neuroradiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The emergence of cerebral microbleeds (CMB) as common MR imaging findings raises the question of how MR imaging parameters influence CMB detection. To evaluate the effects of modified gradient recalled-echo (GRE) MR imaging methods, we performed an analysis of sequence, section thickness, and field strength on CMB imaging properties and detection in subjects with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a condition associated with microhemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple MR images were obtained from subjects with probable CAA, with varying sequences (GRE versus susceptibility-weighted imaging [SWI]), section thicknesses (1.2-1.5 versus 5 mm), and magnetic field strengths (1.5T versus 3T). Individual CMB were manually identified and analyzed for contrast index (lesion intensity normalized to normal-appearing white matter signal intensity) and diameter. CMB counts were compared between 1.5T thick-section GRE and thin-section SWI for 3 subjects who underwent both protocols in the same scanning session. RESULTS: With other parameters constant, use of SWI, thinner sections, and a higher field strength yielded medium-to-large gains in CMB contrast index (CI; Cohen d 0.71-1.87). SWI was also associated with small increases in CMB diameter (Cohen d <0.3). Conventional thick-section GRE identified only 33% of CMB (103 of 310) seen on thin-section SWI. Lesions prospectively identified on GRE had significantly greater CI and diameter measured on the GRE image than those not prospectively identified. CONCLUSIONS: The examined alternatives to conventional GRE MR imaging yield substantially improved CMB contrast and sensitivity for detection. Future studies based on these techniques will most likely yield even higher prevalence estimates for CMB.

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 · 10.3174/ajnr.a1355

Cites

3 of 3 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 424

Metadata

Authors
Nandigam, R. N. K., Viswanathan, A., Delgado, P., Skehan, M. E., Smith, E. E., Rosand, J., Greenberg, S. M., & Dickerson, B. C.
Venue
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published
2008-11-11
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
338-343
ISSN
  • 0195-6108 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-959X
OpenAlex
W2151735381
Cited by
424
References
3
FWCI
10.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.