MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs
Background Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) is a useful technique to detect pancreatic lesion. In DWIs, field‐of‐view optimized and constrained undistorted single‐shot (FOCUS) can improve the spatial resolution and multiplexed sensitivity‐encoding (MUSE) can gain a high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR)....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2023-04, Vol.57 (4), p.1156-1171 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1171 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 1156 |
| container_title | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging |
| container_volume | 57 |
| creator | Bai, Yu Pei, Yigang Liu, Weiyin Vivian Liu, Wenguang Xie, Simin Wang, Xiao Zhong, Linhui Chen, Juan Zhang, Lijuan Masokano, Ismail Bilal Li, Wenzheng |
| description | Background
Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) is a useful technique to detect pancreatic lesion. In DWIs, field‐of‐view optimized and constrained undistorted single‐shot (FOCUS) can improve the spatial resolution and multiplexed sensitivity‐encoding (MUSE) can gain a high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Based on the advantage of FOCUS and MUSE, a new DWI sequence—named FOCUS‐MUSE DWI (FOCUS combined with MUSE)—was developed to delineate the pancreas.
Purpose
To investigate the reliability of FOCUS‐MUSE DWI compared to FOCUS, MUSE and single‐shot (SS) DWI via the systematical evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, SNR and image quality.
Study Type
Prospective.
Subjects
A total of 33 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with pancreatic lesion.
Field Strength/Sequence
A 3.0 T scanner. FOCUS‐MUSE DWI, FOCUS DWI, MUSE DWI, SS DWI.
Assessment
For volunteers, ADC and SNR were measured by two readers in the pancreatic head, body, and tail. For all subjects, the diagnostic image quality score was assessed by three other readers on above four DWIs.
Statistical Tests
Paired‐sample T‐test, intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland–Altman method, Friedman test, Dunn‐Bonferroni post hoc test and kappa coefficient. A significance level of 0.05 was used.
Results
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI had the best intersession repeatability of ADC measurements (head: 59.53, body: 101.64, tail: 42.30) among the four DWIs, and also maintained the significantly highest SNR (reader 1 [head: 19.68 ± 3.23, body: 23.42 ± 5.00, tail: 28.85 ± 4.96], reader 2 [head: 19.93 ± 3.52, body: 23.02 ± 5.69, tail: 29.77 ± 6.33]) except for MUSE DWI. Furthermore, it significantly achieved better image quality in volunteers (median value: 4 score) and 9 patients (most in 4 score).
Data Conclusion
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI improved the reliability of pancreatic images with the most stable ADC measurement, best image quality score and sufficient SNR among four DWIs.
Evidence Level
2
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jmri.28382 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2709743128</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2785203811</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3572-b3c9c0b8cf00a5bbda02a543a52580821a29024710271e70de060fd6b4dac20c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1O3DAURi1EBXRg0weoLLGpKgLXdjxx2KFhKFOBQAyjWUaO48x4lD_spIgdj1Cpb9gnwSGURRes7Ot77pHtD6EvBI4JAD3ZlNYcU8EE3UJ7hFMaUC7G234PnAVEQLSLPju3AYA4DvkO2mVj3xEx30N_ru9mp3j6SxadbE21wu1a47OmKYzydV3hOscXN5PF_O_z7-vFfIrPTZ53znf8wVKb1brVGZ6VctUPm-p1_lZWymrp-npSl420xnnV0rTrQXaEe9cRllWG536w0N42X9ctPl_O3D76lMvC6YO3dYQWF9P7yWVwdfNjNjm7ChTjEQ1SpmIFqVA5gORpmkmgkodMcv98EJRIGgMNIwI0IjqCTMMY8mychplUFBQboW-Dt7H1Q6ddm5TGKV0UstJ15xIaQRyFjPivHaHD_9BN3dnK385TglNgghBPfR8oZWvnrM6TxppS2qeEQNJHlfRRJa9Refjrm7JLS529o_-y8QAZgEdT6KcPVMlPH-IgfQGLYJ7u</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2785203811</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Bai, Yu ; Pei, Yigang ; Liu, Weiyin Vivian ; Liu, Wenguang ; Xie, Simin ; Wang, Xiao ; Zhong, Linhui ; Chen, Juan ; Zhang, Lijuan ; Masokano, Ismail Bilal ; Li, Wenzheng</creator><creatorcontrib>Bai, Yu ; Pei, Yigang ; Liu, Weiyin Vivian ; Liu, Wenguang ; Xie, Simin ; Wang, Xiao ; Zhong, Linhui ; Chen, Juan ; Zhang, Lijuan ; Masokano, Ismail Bilal ; Li, Wenzheng</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) is a useful technique to detect pancreatic lesion. In DWIs, field‐of‐view optimized and constrained undistorted single‐shot (FOCUS) can improve the spatial resolution and multiplexed sensitivity‐encoding (MUSE) can gain a high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Based on the advantage of FOCUS and MUSE, a new DWI sequence—named FOCUS‐MUSE DWI (FOCUS combined with MUSE)—was developed to delineate the pancreas.
Purpose
To investigate the reliability of FOCUS‐MUSE DWI compared to FOCUS, MUSE and single‐shot (SS) DWI via the systematical evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, SNR and image quality.
Study Type
Prospective.
Subjects
A total of 33 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with pancreatic lesion.
Field Strength/Sequence
A 3.0 T scanner. FOCUS‐MUSE DWI, FOCUS DWI, MUSE DWI, SS DWI.
Assessment
For volunteers, ADC and SNR were measured by two readers in the pancreatic head, body, and tail. For all subjects, the diagnostic image quality score was assessed by three other readers on above four DWIs.
Statistical Tests
Paired‐sample T‐test, intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland–Altman method, Friedman test, Dunn‐Bonferroni post hoc test and kappa coefficient. A significance level of 0.05 was used.
Results
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI had the best intersession repeatability of ADC measurements (head: 59.53, body: 101.64, tail: 42.30) among the four DWIs, and also maintained the significantly highest SNR (reader 1 [head: 19.68 ± 3.23, body: 23.42 ± 5.00, tail: 28.85 ± 4.96], reader 2 [head: 19.93 ± 3.52, body: 23.02 ± 5.69, tail: 29.77 ± 6.33]) except for MUSE DWI. Furthermore, it significantly achieved better image quality in volunteers (median value: 4 score) and 9 patients (most in 4 score).
Data Conclusion
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI improved the reliability of pancreatic images with the most stable ADC measurement, best image quality score and sufficient SNR among four DWIs.
Evidence Level
2
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28382</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36053895</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Alprostadil ; Body measurements ; clinical application ; Diffusion coefficient ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Echo-Planar Imaging - methods ; Evaluation ; Field strength ; FOCUS‐MUSE DWI ; Humans ; Image quality ; Lesions ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medical imaging ; Pancreas ; pancreatic DWIs ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Prospective Studies ; Quality assessment ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Spatial discrimination ; Spatial resolution ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Tails</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2023-04, Vol.57 (4), p.1156-1171</ispartof><rights>2022 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.</rights><rights>2023 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3572-b3c9c0b8cf00a5bbda02a543a52580821a29024710271e70de060fd6b4dac20c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3572-b3c9c0b8cf00a5bbda02a543a52580821a29024710271e70de060fd6b4dac20c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1791-0097 ; 0000-0001-6841-3512 ; 0000-0002-7917-7612</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.28382$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.28382$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36053895$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bai, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pei, Yigang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Weiyin Vivian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wenguang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Simin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhong, Linhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Lijuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masokano, Ismail Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Wenzheng</creatorcontrib><title>MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><description>Background
Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) is a useful technique to detect pancreatic lesion. In DWIs, field‐of‐view optimized and constrained undistorted single‐shot (FOCUS) can improve the spatial resolution and multiplexed sensitivity‐encoding (MUSE) can gain a high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Based on the advantage of FOCUS and MUSE, a new DWI sequence—named FOCUS‐MUSE DWI (FOCUS combined with MUSE)—was developed to delineate the pancreas.
Purpose
To investigate the reliability of FOCUS‐MUSE DWI compared to FOCUS, MUSE and single‐shot (SS) DWI via the systematical evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, SNR and image quality.
Study Type
Prospective.
Subjects
A total of 33 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with pancreatic lesion.
Field Strength/Sequence
A 3.0 T scanner. FOCUS‐MUSE DWI, FOCUS DWI, MUSE DWI, SS DWI.
Assessment
For volunteers, ADC and SNR were measured by two readers in the pancreatic head, body, and tail. For all subjects, the diagnostic image quality score was assessed by three other readers on above four DWIs.
Statistical Tests
Paired‐sample T‐test, intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland–Altman method, Friedman test, Dunn‐Bonferroni post hoc test and kappa coefficient. A significance level of 0.05 was used.
Results
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI had the best intersession repeatability of ADC measurements (head: 59.53, body: 101.64, tail: 42.30) among the four DWIs, and also maintained the significantly highest SNR (reader 1 [head: 19.68 ± 3.23, body: 23.42 ± 5.00, tail: 28.85 ± 4.96], reader 2 [head: 19.93 ± 3.52, body: 23.02 ± 5.69, tail: 29.77 ± 6.33]) except for MUSE DWI. Furthermore, it significantly achieved better image quality in volunteers (median value: 4 score) and 9 patients (most in 4 score).
Data Conclusion
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI improved the reliability of pancreatic images with the most stable ADC measurement, best image quality score and sufficient SNR among four DWIs.
Evidence Level
2
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2</description><subject>Alprostadil</subject><subject>Body measurements</subject><subject>clinical application</subject><subject>Diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Echo-Planar Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Field strength</subject><subject>FOCUS‐MUSE DWI</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image quality</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Pancreas</subject><subject>pancreatic DWIs</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Spatial discrimination</subject><subject>Spatial resolution</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Tails</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1O3DAURi1EBXRg0weoLLGpKgLXdjxx2KFhKFOBQAyjWUaO48x4lD_spIgdj1Cpb9gnwSGURRes7Ot77pHtD6EvBI4JAD3ZlNYcU8EE3UJ7hFMaUC7G234PnAVEQLSLPju3AYA4DvkO2mVj3xEx30N_ru9mp3j6SxadbE21wu1a47OmKYzydV3hOscXN5PF_O_z7-vFfIrPTZ53znf8wVKb1brVGZ6VctUPm-p1_lZWymrp-npSl420xnnV0rTrQXaEe9cRllWG536w0N42X9ctPl_O3D76lMvC6YO3dYQWF9P7yWVwdfNjNjm7ChTjEQ1SpmIFqVA5gORpmkmgkodMcv98EJRIGgMNIwI0IjqCTMMY8mychplUFBQboW-Dt7H1Q6ddm5TGKV0UstJ15xIaQRyFjPivHaHD_9BN3dnK385TglNgghBPfR8oZWvnrM6TxppS2qeEQNJHlfRRJa9Refjrm7JLS529o_-y8QAZgEdT6KcPVMlPH-IgfQGLYJ7u</recordid><startdate>202304</startdate><enddate>202304</enddate><creator>Bai, Yu</creator><creator>Pei, Yigang</creator><creator>Liu, Weiyin Vivian</creator><creator>Liu, Wenguang</creator><creator>Xie, Simin</creator><creator>Wang, Xiao</creator><creator>Zhong, Linhui</creator><creator>Chen, Juan</creator><creator>Zhang, Lijuan</creator><creator>Masokano, Ismail Bilal</creator><creator>Li, Wenzheng</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1791-0097</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6841-3512</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7917-7612</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202304</creationdate><title>MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs</title><author>Bai, Yu ; Pei, Yigang ; Liu, Weiyin Vivian ; Liu, Wenguang ; Xie, Simin ; Wang, Xiao ; Zhong, Linhui ; Chen, Juan ; Zhang, Lijuan ; Masokano, Ismail Bilal ; Li, Wenzheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3572-b3c9c0b8cf00a5bbda02a543a52580821a29024710271e70de060fd6b4dac20c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Alprostadil</topic><topic>Body measurements</topic><topic>clinical application</topic><topic>Diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Echo-Planar Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Field strength</topic><topic>FOCUS‐MUSE DWI</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image quality</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Pancreas</topic><topic>pancreatic DWIs</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Spatial discrimination</topic><topic>Spatial resolution</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Tails</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bai, Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pei, Yigang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Weiyin Vivian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Wenguang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Simin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhong, Linhui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Juan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Lijuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masokano, Ismail Bilal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Wenzheng</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bai, Yu</au><au>Pei, Yigang</au><au>Liu, Weiyin Vivian</au><au>Liu, Wenguang</au><au>Xie, Simin</au><au>Wang, Xiao</au><au>Zhong, Linhui</au><au>Chen, Juan</au><au>Zhang, Lijuan</au><au>Masokano, Ismail Bilal</au><au>Li, Wenzheng</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><date>2023-04</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1156</spage><epage>1171</epage><pages>1156-1171</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>Background
Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) is a useful technique to detect pancreatic lesion. In DWIs, field‐of‐view optimized and constrained undistorted single‐shot (FOCUS) can improve the spatial resolution and multiplexed sensitivity‐encoding (MUSE) can gain a high signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR). Based on the advantage of FOCUS and MUSE, a new DWI sequence—named FOCUS‐MUSE DWI (FOCUS combined with MUSE)—was developed to delineate the pancreas.
Purpose
To investigate the reliability of FOCUS‐MUSE DWI compared to FOCUS, MUSE and single‐shot (SS) DWI via the systematical evaluation of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, SNR and image quality.
Study Type
Prospective.
Subjects
A total of 33 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with pancreatic lesion.
Field Strength/Sequence
A 3.0 T scanner. FOCUS‐MUSE DWI, FOCUS DWI, MUSE DWI, SS DWI.
Assessment
For volunteers, ADC and SNR were measured by two readers in the pancreatic head, body, and tail. For all subjects, the diagnostic image quality score was assessed by three other readers on above four DWIs.
Statistical Tests
Paired‐sample T‐test, intraclass correlation (ICC), Bland–Altman method, Friedman test, Dunn‐Bonferroni post hoc test and kappa coefficient. A significance level of 0.05 was used.
Results
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI had the best intersession repeatability of ADC measurements (head: 59.53, body: 101.64, tail: 42.30) among the four DWIs, and also maintained the significantly highest SNR (reader 1 [head: 19.68 ± 3.23, body: 23.42 ± 5.00, tail: 28.85 ± 4.96], reader 2 [head: 19.93 ± 3.52, body: 23.02 ± 5.69, tail: 29.77 ± 6.33]) except for MUSE DWI. Furthermore, it significantly achieved better image quality in volunteers (median value: 4 score) and 9 patients (most in 4 score).
Data Conclusion
FOCUS‐MUSE DWI improved the reliability of pancreatic images with the most stable ADC measurement, best image quality score and sufficient SNR among four DWIs.
Evidence Level
2
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>36053895</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.28382</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1791-0097</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6841-3512</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7917-7612</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1053-1807 |
| ispartof | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2023-04, Vol.57 (4), p.1156-1171 |
| issn | 1053-1807 1522-2586 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2709743128 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Alprostadil Body measurements clinical application Diffusion coefficient Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Echo-Planar Imaging - methods Evaluation Field strength FOCUS‐MUSE DWI Humans Image quality Lesions Magnetic Resonance Imaging Medical imaging Pancreas pancreatic DWIs Pancreatic Neoplasms Prospective Studies Quality assessment Reliability Reproducibility of Results Spatial discrimination Spatial resolution Statistical analysis Statistical tests Tails |
| title | MRI: Evaluating the Application of FOCUS‐MUSE Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging in the Pancreas in Comparison With FOCUS, MUSE, and Single‐Shot DWIs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T08%3A56%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MRI:%20Evaluating%20the%20Application%20of%20FOCUS%E2%80%90MUSE%20Diffusion%E2%80%90Weighted%20Imaging%20in%20the%20Pancreas%20in%20Comparison%20With%20FOCUS,%20MUSE,%20and%20Single%E2%80%90Shot%20DWIs&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=Bai,%20Yu&rft.date=2023-04&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1156&rft.epage=1171&rft.pages=1156-1171&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.28382&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2785203811%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2785203811&rft_id=info:pmid/36053895&rfr_iscdi=true |