ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2024
A Comparison of the Sensitivity and Cellular Detection Capabilities of Magnetic Particle Imaging and Bioluminescence Imaging.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging of intranasal drug delivery to the brain: updated review 2.0.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Review
- Magnetic Particle Imaging Distinguishes Viable and Damaged Cells by Exploiting Distinct Magnetic Signatures of Internalized Nanoparticles.Small science · 2026Article
- Signal Intensity versus Spatial Resolution: Divergent MPI Performance of SPIONs in Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Labelling.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Article
- Development of Iron Oxide Nanochains as a Sensitive Magnetic Particle Imaging Tracer for Cancer Detection.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreclinical cell tracking is enhanced with a multimodal imaging approach. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) is a highly sensitive optical modality that relies on engineering cells to constitutively express a luciferase gene. Magnetic particle imaging (MPI) is a newer imaging modality that directly detects superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) particles used to label cells. Here, we compare BLI and MPI for imaging cells in vitro and in vivo.
methodsMouse 4T1 breast carcinoma cells were transduced to express firefly luciferase, labeled with SPIO (ProMag), and imaged as cell samples after subcutaneous injection into mice.
resultsFor cell samples, the BLI and MPI signals were strongly correlated with cell number. Both modalities presented limitations for imaging cells in vivo. For BLI, weak signal penetration, signal attenuation, and scattering prevented the detection of cells for mice with hair and for cells far from the tissue surface. For MPI, background signals obscured the detection of low cell numbers due to the limited dynamic range, and cell numbers could not be accurately quantified from in vivo images.
conclusionsIt is important to understand the shortcomings of these imaging modalities to develop strategies to improve cellular detection sensitivity.
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.