Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial

Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. A prospective multireader,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR 2017-06, Vol.38 (6), p.1103-1110
Hauptverfasser: Tanenbaum, L N, Tsiouris, A J, Johnson, A N, Naidich, T P, DeLano, M C, Melhem, E R, Quarterman, P, Parameswaran, S X, Shankaranarayanan, A, Goyen, M, Field, A S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1110
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1103
container_title American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR
container_volume 38
creator Tanenbaum, L N
Tsiouris, A J
Johnson, A N
Naidich, T P
DeLano, M C
Melhem, E R
Quarterman, P
Parameswaran, S X
Shankaranarayanan, A
Goyen, M
Field, A S
description Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale ( < .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in >95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, >80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.
doi_str_mv 10.3174/ajnr.A5227
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7960099</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1893547231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-8677fc7c7e7f21447f549b87373f7f3f7b101fefdd73045a1f9852024e64badd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkdFqFDEUhoModq3e-AAS8KaKU5NJMpl4ISyD1oWuSq3gXchmTrZZZpM1mSn0LXxks-1a1ItwSM53fv6TH6HnlJwyKvlbswnpdC7qWj5AM6pYUymhfjxEM0KVqBpK2iP0JOcNIUQoWT9GR3XLBeFMzdCvbzdhvILRW7y8WGAXE-4GH7w1A_4MU4p-a9Y-rN_hC8jTMGYcHS4DeGnW4XasvMdgggW8KCjgLm53fjCjjwGfLOdnvnuFv6aYd2BHfw1v8LLIeAthhHS4JDA9JHyZvBmeokfODBmeHeox-v7xw2X3qTr_crbo5ueV5bIeq7aR0llpJUhXU86lE1ytWskkc9KVs6KEOnB9LxnhwlCnWlGTmkPDV6bv2TF6f6e7m1Zb6Pd-khn0LpWF042Oxut_O8Ff6XW81lI1hChVBE4OAin-nCCPeuuzhWEwAeKUNW0VE8UrowV9-R-6iVMKZT1NVUuJkG3DC_X6jrLlt3ICd2-GEr0PWu-D1rdBF_jF3_bv0T_Jst8r8aYP</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1981057864</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Tanenbaum, L N ; Tsiouris, A J ; Johnson, A N ; Naidich, T P ; DeLano, M C ; Melhem, E R ; Quarterman, P ; Parameswaran, S X ; Shankaranarayanan, A ; Goyen, M ; Field, A S</creator><creatorcontrib>Tanenbaum, L N ; Tsiouris, A J ; Johnson, A N ; Naidich, T P ; DeLano, M C ; Melhem, E R ; Quarterman, P ; Parameswaran, S X ; Shankaranarayanan, A ; Goyen, M ; Field, A S</creatorcontrib><description>Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale ( &lt; .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in &gt;95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, &gt;80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-6108</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-959X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5227</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28450439</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Neuroradiology</publisher><subject>Adult ; Adult Brain ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Brain ; Brain - diagnostic imaging ; Density ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic systems ; Editor's Choice ; Female ; Humans ; Image acquisition ; Image processing ; Image quality ; Image reconstruction ; Legibility ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; Medical imaging ; Middle Aged ; Neuroimaging ; Neuroimaging - methods ; Neurology ; Pathology ; Prospective Studies ; Proton density (concentration) ; Quality assessment ; Randomization ; White noise ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR, 2017-06, Vol.38 (6), p.1103-1110</ispartof><rights>2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Neuroradiology Jun 2017</rights><rights>2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology 2017 American Journal of Neuroradiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-8677fc7c7e7f21447f549b87373f7f3f7b101fefdd73045a1f9852024e64badd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-8677fc7c7e7f21447f549b87373f7f3f7b101fefdd73045a1f9852024e64badd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9281-716X ; 0000-0003-1102-4879 ; 0000-0003-3326-3192 ; 0000-0003-2304-7007 ; 0000-0002-4706-4306 ; 0000-0001-9551-5944 ; 0000-0003-1550-6445 ; 0000-0001-7003-0641 ; 0000-0003-4349-1009 ; 0000-0002-8885-4902 ; 0000-0001-5869-9449</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960099/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960099/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,27905,27906,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28450439$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tanenbaum, L N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsiouris, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, A N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naidich, T P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLano, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melhem, E R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quarterman, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parameswaran, S X</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shankaranarayanan, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyen, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Field, A S</creatorcontrib><title>Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial</title><title>American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR</title><addtitle>AJNR Am J Neuroradiol</addtitle><description>Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale ( &lt; .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in &gt;95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, &gt;80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Adult Brain</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Editor's Choice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image acquisition</subject><subject>Image processing</subject><subject>Image quality</subject><subject>Image reconstruction</subject><subject>Legibility</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neuroimaging - methods</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Proton density (concentration)</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>White noise</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0195-6108</issn><issn>1936-959X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkdFqFDEUhoModq3e-AAS8KaKU5NJMpl4ISyD1oWuSq3gXchmTrZZZpM1mSn0LXxks-1a1ItwSM53fv6TH6HnlJwyKvlbswnpdC7qWj5AM6pYUymhfjxEM0KVqBpK2iP0JOcNIUQoWT9GR3XLBeFMzdCvbzdhvILRW7y8WGAXE-4GH7w1A_4MU4p-a9Y-rN_hC8jTMGYcHS4DeGnW4XasvMdgggW8KCjgLm53fjCjjwGfLOdnvnuFv6aYd2BHfw1v8LLIeAthhHS4JDA9JHyZvBmeokfODBmeHeox-v7xw2X3qTr_crbo5ueV5bIeq7aR0llpJUhXU86lE1ytWskkc9KVs6KEOnB9LxnhwlCnWlGTmkPDV6bv2TF6f6e7m1Zb6Pd-khn0LpWF042Oxut_O8Ff6XW81lI1hChVBE4OAin-nCCPeuuzhWEwAeKUNW0VE8UrowV9-R-6iVMKZT1NVUuJkG3DC_X6jrLlt3ICd2-GEr0PWu-D1rdBF_jF3_bv0T_Jst8r8aYP</recordid><startdate>20170601</startdate><enddate>20170601</enddate><creator>Tanenbaum, L N</creator><creator>Tsiouris, A J</creator><creator>Johnson, A N</creator><creator>Naidich, T P</creator><creator>DeLano, M C</creator><creator>Melhem, E R</creator><creator>Quarterman, P</creator><creator>Parameswaran, S X</creator><creator>Shankaranarayanan, A</creator><creator>Goyen, M</creator><creator>Field, A S</creator><general>American Society of Neuroradiology</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>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9281-716X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1102-4879</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3326-3192</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2304-7007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4706-4306</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9551-5944</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1550-6445</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-0641</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4349-1009</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8885-4902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-9449</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170601</creationdate><title>Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial</title><author>Tanenbaum, L N ; Tsiouris, A J ; Johnson, A N ; Naidich, T P ; DeLano, M C ; Melhem, E R ; Quarterman, P ; Parameswaran, S X ; Shankaranarayanan, A ; Goyen, M ; Field, A S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-8677fc7c7e7f21447f549b87373f7f3f7b101fefdd73045a1f9852024e64badd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Adult Brain</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Editor's Choice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image acquisition</topic><topic>Image processing</topic><topic>Image quality</topic><topic>Image reconstruction</topic><topic>Legibility</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neuroimaging - methods</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Proton density (concentration)</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>White noise</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tanenbaum, L N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsiouris, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, A N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naidich, T P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLano, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melhem, E R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quarterman, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parameswaran, S X</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shankaranarayanan, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goyen, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Field, A S</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>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tanenbaum, L N</au><au>Tsiouris, A J</au><au>Johnson, A N</au><au>Naidich, T P</au><au>DeLano, M C</au><au>Melhem, E R</au><au>Quarterman, P</au><au>Parameswaran, S X</au><au>Shankaranarayanan, A</au><au>Goyen, M</au><au>Field, A S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial</atitle><jtitle>American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR</jtitle><addtitle>AJNR Am J Neuroradiol</addtitle><date>2017-06-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1103</spage><epage>1110</epage><pages>1103-1110</pages><issn>0195-6108</issn><eissn>1936-959X</eissn><abstract>Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale ( &lt; .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in &gt;95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, &gt;80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Neuroradiology</pub><pmid>28450439</pmid><doi>10.3174/ajnr.A5227</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9281-716X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1102-4879</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3326-3192</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2304-7007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4706-4306</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9551-5944</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1550-6445</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-0641</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4349-1009</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8885-4902</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-9449</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0195-6108
ispartof American journal of neuroradiology : AJNR, 2017-06, Vol.38 (6), p.1103-1110
issn 0195-6108
1936-959X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7960099
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adult
Adult Brain
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brain
Brain - diagnostic imaging
Density
Diagnosis
Diagnostic systems
Editor's Choice
Female
Humans
Image acquisition
Image processing
Image quality
Image reconstruction
Legibility
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
Medical imaging
Middle Aged
Neuroimaging
Neuroimaging - methods
Neurology
Pathology
Prospective Studies
Proton density (concentration)
Quality assessment
Randomization
White noise
Young Adult
title Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T04%3A11%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Synthetic%20MRI%20for%20Clinical%20Neuroimaging:%20Results%20of%20the%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Image%20Compilation%20(MAGiC)%20Prospective,%20Multicenter,%20Multireader%20Trial&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20neuroradiology%20:%20AJNR&rft.au=Tanenbaum,%20L%20N&rft.date=2017-06-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1103&rft.epage=1110&rft.pages=1103-1110&rft.issn=0195-6108&rft.eissn=1936-959X&rft_id=info:doi/10.3174/ajnr.A5227&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1893547231%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1981057864&rft_id=info:pmid/28450439&rfr_iscdi=true