ArticleJournal of medical ultrasound
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Monitoring of Thermal Lesions Produced by Focused Ultrasound.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasound. 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.
- Integrated device for optoacoustically-guided ultrasound surgery.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Utilizing an Agar/Silica Phantom for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Focused Ultrasound Evaluation: Lesion Formation, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Manifestation, and Comparison with Porcine Tissue.Journal of medical ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The main goal of the study was to find the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters that optimize contrast between tissue and thermal lesions produced by focused ultrasound (FUS) using T1-weighted (T1-W) and T2-weighted (T2-W) fast spin echo (FSE) sequences. Methods: FUS sonications were performed in Results: FUS lesions are characterized by lower relaxation times than intact porcine tissue. CNR values above 80 were sufficient for proper lesion visualization. For T1-W imaging, repetition time values close to 1500 ms were considered optimum for obtaining sufficiently high CNR at the minimum time cost. Echo time values close to 50 ms offered the maximum lesion contrast in T2-W FSE imaging. Monitoring of acute FUS lesions during grid sonications was performed successfully. Lesions appeared as hypointense spots with excellent contrast from surrounding tissue. Conclusion: MRI monitoring of signal intensity changes during FUS sonication in grid patterns using optimized sequence parameters can provide useful information about lesion progression and the success of ablation. This preliminary study demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed monitoring method in
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.