ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Measurement of renal cortex perfusion: A direct comparison of arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging and [
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Human biomarker navigator.iMeta · 2026Review
- Measurement of renal cortex perfusion: A direct comparison of arterial spin labelling magnetic resonance imaging and [Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeReliable information about renal blood supply is important to understand kidney physiology and diseases. Arterial spin labeling MR (ASL-MR) imaging and [
methodsTen healthy subjects (mean 25 years, 5 males) with normal glomerular filtration rate were examined twice, 16 days (range 12-23) apart. Repeatability was assessed on Day 1 with two successive examinations. A single scan on Day 2 was used to assess reproducibility.
resultsSingle-kidney perfusion varied between individuals from 150 to 422 mL/min/100 mL for ASL-MR and from 184 to 470 mL/min/100 mL for PET. Repeatability and reproducibility were comparable between ASL-MR and PET. Bias was generally low (-13 to 5 mL/min/100 mL), but 95% limits of agreement (LoAs) were wide, ranging from 69 to 88 mL/min/100 mL. Overall, correlations between ASL-MR and PET perfusion values were weak, and in a linear mixed-effects model, bias was 18 and LoA 136 mL/min/100 mL. Agreement between ASL-MR and PET was acceptable at perfusion values between approximately 250 and 350 mL/min/100 mL. At lower perfusion, PET exceeded ASL-MR, whereas the opposite was observed at higher perfusion.
conclusionASL-MR and [
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.