These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10464808)
1. Effect of field strength on MR images: comparison of the same subject at 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 T. Maubon AJ; Ferru JM; Berger V; Soulage MC; DeGraef M; Aubas P; Coupeau P; Dumont E; Rouanet JP Radiographics; 1999; 19(4):1057-67. PubMed ID: 10464808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T--Initial Experience. Krautmacher C; Willinek WA; Tschampa HJ; Born M; Träber F; Gieseke J; Textor HJ; Schild HH; Kuhl CK Radiology; 2005 Dec; 237(3):1014-9. PubMed ID: 16237142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 3D isotropic turbo spin-echo intermediate-weighted sequence with refocusing control in knee imaging: comparison study with 3D isotropic fast-field echo sequence. Seo JM; Yoon YC; Kwon JW Acta Radiol; 2011 Dec; 52(10):1119-24. PubMed ID: 22144425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Liver: segment-specific analysis of B1 field homogeneity at 3.0-T MR imaging with single-source versus dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation. Pazahr S; Fischer MA; Chuck N; Luechinger R; Schick F; Nanz D; Boss A Radiology; 2012 Nov; 265(2):591-9. PubMed ID: 22929333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of t2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 tesla. Fischbach F; Müller M; Bruhn H Acta Radiol; 2008 Apr; 49(3):358-63. PubMed ID: 18365827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Magnetic field strength increase yields significantly greater contrast-to-noise ratio increase: Measured using BOLD contrast in the primary visual area. Okada T; Yamada H; Ito H; Yonekura Y; Sadato N Acad Radiol; 2005 Feb; 12(2):142-7. PubMed ID: 15721590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Ultrahigh-field 7-T magnetic resonance carotid vessel wall imaging: initial experience in comparison with 3-T field strength. Kröner ES; van Schinkel LD; Versluis MJ; Brouwer NJ; van den Boogaard PJ; van der Wall EE; de Roos A; Webb AG; Siebelink HM; Lamb HJ Invest Radiol; 2012 Dec; 47(12):697-704. PubMed ID: 22996317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Fast multiplanar spoiled gradient-recalled imaging of the liver: pulse sequence optimization and comparison with spin-echo MR imaging. Low RN; Francis IR; Herfkens RJ; Jeffrey RB; Glazer GM; Foo TK; Shimakawa A; Pelc NJ AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Mar; 160(3):501-9. PubMed ID: 8381572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Ba-Ssalamah A; Nöbauer-Huhmann IM; Pinker K; Schibany N; Prokesch R; Mehrain S; Mlynárik V; Fog A; Heimberger K; Trattnig S Invest Radiol; 2003 Jul; 38(7):415-22. PubMed ID: 12821855 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [The effect of the field strength on standardized MRI of the brain to demonstrate cranial nerves and vessels: a comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla]. Röttgen R; Haltaufderheide K; Schröder RJ; Lorenz M; Herzog H; Neumann F; Lehmkuhl L; Winter L; Felix R; Bruhn H Rofo; 2005 Apr; 177(4):530-5. PubMed ID: 15838758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Motion suppression in MR imaging of the liver: comparison of respiratory-triggered and nontriggered fast spin-echo sequences. Low RN; Alzate GD; Shimakawa A AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Jan; 168(1):225-31. PubMed ID: 8976950 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. MR imaging field strength: prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of MR for diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at 0.5 and 1.5 T. Lee DH; Vellet AD; Eliasziw M; Vidito L; Ebers GC; Rice GP; Hewett L; Dunlavy S Radiology; 1995 Jan; 194(1):257-62. PubMed ID: 7997564 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Systematic variation of off-resonance prepulses for clinical magnetization transfer contrast imaging at 0.2, 1.5, and 3.0 tesla. Martirosian P; Boss A; Deimling M; Kiefer B; Schraml C; Schwenzer NF; Claussen CD; Schick F Invest Radiol; 2008 Jan; 43(1):16-26. PubMed ID: 18097273 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. MR colonoscopy at 3.0 T: comparison with 1.5 T in vivo and a colon model. Röttgen R; Herzog H; Bogen P; Freund T; Felix R; Bruhn H Clin Imaging; 2006; 30(4):248-53. PubMed ID: 16814140 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Signal-to-noise ratio for hyperpolarized ³He MR imaging of human lungs: a 1.5 T and 3 T comparison. Dominguez-Viqueira W; Ouriadov A; O'Halloran R; Fain SB; Santyr GE Magn Reson Med; 2011 Nov; 66(5):1400-4. PubMed ID: 21523821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Elimination of motion and pulsation artifacts using BLADE sequences in knee MR imaging. Lavdas E; Mavroidis P; Hatzigeorgiou V; Roka V; Arikidis N; Oikonomou G; Andrianopoulos K; Notaras I Magn Reson Imaging; 2012 Oct; 30(8):1099-110. PubMed ID: 22673894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]