High-field-strength MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Intraindividual comparative study with MR imaging at 1.5 T

Radiology

Volumn 241, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 156-166

  Von Falkenhausen, Marcus M ^a   Lutterbey, Götz ^a   Morakkabati Spitz, Nuschin ^a   Walter, Oliver ^b   Gieseke, Jürgen ^a,c   Blömer, Renate ^a   Willinek, Winfried A ^a   Schild, Hans H ^a   Kuhl, Christiane K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

^c PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FAT; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER INJURY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIGN TEST;

EID: 33748920684     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2411051221     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Kruger G, Kastrup A, Glover GH. Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:595-604.
2. Yoneoka Y, Kwee IL, Fujii Y, Nakada T. Criteria for normal cavities observed within the adult hippocampus: high resolution magnetic resonance imaging study on a 3.0-T-system. J Neuroimaging 2002;12:231-235.
3. Kuhl CK, Textor J, Gieseke J, et al. Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 2005;234:509-516.
4. Nakada T. Clinical experience on 3.0 T systems in Niigata, 1996 to 2002. Invest Radiol 2003;38:377-384.
5. Baudendistel KT, Heverhagen JT, Knopp MV. Clinical MR at 3 Tesla: current status [in German]. Radiologe 2004;44:11-18.
6. Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B, et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913-920.
7. Hoenig K, Kuhl CK, Scheef L. Functional 3.0-T MR assessment of higher cognitive function: are there advantages over 1.5-T imaging? Radiology 2005;234:860-868.
8. Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, Lauzon ML, Sevick RJ. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 2003;38:385-402.
9. Schick F. Whole body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 2005;15:946-959.
10. Sled JG, Pike GB. Standing-wave and RF penetration artifacts caused by elliptic geometry: an electrodynamic analysis of MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1998;17:653-662.
11. Kangarlu A, Baertlein BA, Lee R, et al. Dielectric resonance phenomena in ultra high field MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23:821-831.
12. de Bazelaire CMJ, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230:652-659.
13. Bottomley PA, Foster TH, Argersinger RE, Pfeifer LM. A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. Med Phys 1984;11:425-448.
14. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952-962.
15. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37-46.
16. Robinson BF, Bakeman R. ComKappa: a Windows 95 program for calculating kappa and related statistics. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1998;30:731-732.
17. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement. In: Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley, 1981;212-236.
18. Bortz J, Lienert GA, Boehnke K. Analyse von rangdaten-vorzeichentest [Analysis of rank data-sign-rank test]. In: Bortz J, Lienert GA, Boehnke K, eds. Verteilungsfreie methoden in der biostatistik [Distribution-free methods in biostatistics]. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2000; 257-268.
19. Bortz, J. Verfahren zur überprüfung von unterschiedshypothesen [Tests for hypotheses about differences]. In: Bortz J. Statistik für sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for social scientists]. 4th ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1993; 128-165.
20. Vlaardingerbroek MT, den Boer JA, Motion and flow. In: Vlaardingerbroek MT, den Boer JA, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1999; 311-408.
21. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:6-12.
22. Gieseke J, Kuhl C, von Falkenhausen M, et al. Ultra fast T2-weighted TSE sequence with flip angle sweep and SENSE at 3.0 T (abstr). In: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 74.