A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Brain magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla using BLADE compared with standard rectilinear data sampling. | LitMetric

Objectives: We sought to evaluate Periodically Rotated Overlapping ParallEL Lines with Enhanced Reconstruction (PROPELLER; BLADE) data acquisition in comparison with standard k-space sampling techniques for axial and sagittal brain imaging at 3 T regarding imaging artifacts.

Material And Methods: Forty patients who gave consent were included in a prospective comparison of standard and PROPELLER (BLADE) k-space sampling techniques. All examinations were performed at 3 T with comparison of standard T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) to PROPELLER T2-weighted FLAIR in the axial image orientation and standard T1-weighted gradient echo to PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR in the sagittal image orientation. Imaging protocols were matched for spatial resolution, with data evaluation performed by 2 experienced neuroradiologists. Image data were compared regarding various image artifacts and overall image quality. Reader agreement was assessed by Cohen's kappa statistics.

Results: PROPELLER T2-weighted axial data acquisition showed significantly less pulsation and Gibb's artifacts than the standard T2-weighted scan. Even without motion correction, the frequency of ghosting (motion) artifacts was substantially lower in the PROPELLER T2-weighted data and readers concordantly (kappa = 1) rated PROPELLER as better than or equal to the standard T2-weighted scan in the majority of cases (95%; P < 0.0001). In the comparison of sagittal T1-weighted data sets, readers showed only fair agreement (kappa = 0.24) and noted consistent wrap artifacts in PROPELLER T1-weighted FLAIR.

Conclusion: PROPELLER (BLADE) brain magnetic resonance imaging is also applicable at 3 T. In addition to minimizing motion artifacts, the PROPELLER acquisition scheme reduces other magnetic resonance artifacts that would otherwise degrade scan quality.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000223742.35655.24DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnetic resonance
12
propeller blade
12
comparison standard
12
standard t2-weighted
12
propeller t2-weighted
12
propeller
10
brain magnetic
8
resonance imaging
8
data acquisition
8
k-space sampling
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!