ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2022
Proton density water fraction as a reproducible MR-based measurement of breast density.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Linearity and bias of proton density fat fraction across the full dynamic range of 0-100%: a multiplatform, multivendor phantom study using 1.5T and 3T MRI at two sites.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Assessing breast density using the chemical-shift encoding-based proton density fat fraction in 3-T MRI.European radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo introduce proton density water fraction (PDWF) as a confounder-corrected (CC) MR-based biomarker of mammographic breast density, a known risk factor for breast cancer.
methodsChemical shift encoded (CSE) MR images were acquired using a low flip angle to provide proton density contrast from multiple echo times. Fat and water images, corrected for known biases, were produced by a six-echo CC CSE-MRI algorithm. Fibroglandular tissue (FGT) volume was calculated from whole-breast segmented PDWF maps at 1.5T and 3T. The method was evaluated in (1) a physical fat-water phantom and (2) normal volunteers. Results from two- and three-echo CSE-MRI methods were included for comparison.
resultsSix-echo CC-CSE-MRI produced unbiased estimates of the total water volume in the phantom (mean bias 3.3%) and was reproducible across protocol changes (repeatability coefficient [RC] = 14.8 cm
conclusionThe use of six-echo CC-CSE-MRI to create unbiased PDWF maps that reproducibly quantify FGT in the breast is demonstrated. Further studies are needed to correlate this quantitative MR biomarker for breast density with mammography and overall risk for breast cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.