↓ Skip to main content

1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: A comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: A comparative study
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0187528
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the feasibility as well as potential impact of altered magnetic field properties on image quality and potential artifacts of 1.5 Tesla, 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla non-enhanced abdominal MRI. Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging of the upper abdomen was performed in 10 healthy volunteers on a 1.5 Tesla, a 3 Tesla and a 7 Tesla MR system. The study protocol comprised a (1) T1-weighted fat-saturated spoiled gradient-echo sequence (2D FLASH), (2) T1-weighted fat-saturated volumetric interpolated breath hold examination sequence (3D VIBE), (3) T1-weighted 2D in and opposed phase sequence, (4) True fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence (TrueFISP) and (5) T2-weighted turbo spin-echo (TSE) sequence. For comparison reasons field of view and acquisition times were kept comparable for each correlating sequence at all three field strengths, while trying to achieve the highest possible spatial resolution. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were tested for significant differences. While 1.5 and 3 Tesla MRI revealed comparable results in all assessed features and sequences, 7 Tesla MRI yielded considerable differences in T1 and T2 weighted imaging. Benefits of 7 Tesla MRI encompassed an increased higher spatial resolution and a non-enhanced hyperintense vessel signal at 7 Tesla, potentially offering a more accurate diagnosis of abdominal parenchymatous and vasculature disease. 7 Tesla MRI was also shown to be more impaired by artifacts, including residual B1 inhomogeneities, susceptibility and chemical shift artifacts, resulting in reduced overall image quality and overall image impairment ratings. While 1.5 and 3 Tesla T2w imaging showed equivalently high image quality, 7 Tesla revealed strong impairments in its diagnostic value. Our results demonstrate the feasibility and overall comparable imaging ability of T1-weighted 7 Tesla abdominal MRI towards 3 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla MRI, yielding a promising diagnostic potential for non-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA). 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla offer comparably high-quality T2w imaging, showing superior diagnostic quality over 7 Tesla MRI.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Engineering 16 16%
Physics and Astronomy 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 40 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2021.
All research outputs
#9,334,777
of 32,106,825 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#79,483
of 214,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,103
of 360,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,272
of 3,578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,106,825 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.