119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10870931)
1. 4.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of brainstem lesions with ocular motility deficits.
Pelak VS; Bolinger L; Galetta SL; Butler N; Stein A; Liu GT
J Neuroophthalmol; 2000 Jun; 20(2):135-7. PubMed ID: 10870931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Magnetic resonance imaging of hyaline cartilage defects at 1.5T and 3.0T: comparison of medium T2-weighted fast spin echo, T1-weighted two-dimensional and three-dimensional gradient echo pulse sequences.
Fischbach F; Bruhn H; Unterhauser F; Ricke J; Wieners G; Felix R; Weiler A; Schröder RJ
Acta Radiol; 2005 Feb; 46(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 15841742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast MRI: intraindividual comparative study at 1.5 and 3.0T; initial experience.
Djilas-Ivanovic DD; Prvulovic NP; Bogdanovic-Stojanovic DD; Ivkovic-Kapicl TV; Ivanovic VM; Golubovic A; Semelka RC
J BUON; 2012; 17(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 22517695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. MR imaging of the fetal brain at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths: comparing specific absorption rate (SAR) and image quality.
Krishnamurthy U; Neelavalli J; Mody S; Yeo L; Jella PK; Saleem S; Korzeniewski SJ; Cabrera MD; Ehterami S; Bahado-Singh RO; Katkuri Y; Haacke EM; Hernandez-Andrade E; Hassan SS; Romero R
J Perinat Med; 2015 Mar; 43(2):209-20. PubMed ID: 25324440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T.
Eckstein F; Charles HC; Buck RJ; Kraus VB; Remmers AE; Hudelmaier M; Wirth W; Evelhoch JL
Arthritis Rheum; 2005 Oct; 52(10):3132-6. PubMed ID: 16200592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of the Magnetic Field Strength on Image Contrast in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR Imaging: Comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.
Hata H; Inoue Y; Nakajima A; Komi S; Miyatake H
Magn Reson Med Sci; 2017 Apr; 16(2):109-114. PubMed ID: 27151747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Clinical applications of 3.0 T magnetic resonance system in the neuroradiological field].
Matsusue E; Ogawa T
Brain Nerve; 2007 May; 59(5):479-85. PubMed ID: 17533973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Advances of 3T MR imaging in visualizing trabecular bone structure of the calcaneus are partially SNR-independent: analysis using simulated noise in relation to micro-CT, 1.5T MRI, and biomechanical strength.
Bauer JS; Monetti R; Krug R; Matsuura M; Mueller D; Eckstein F; Rummeny EJ; Lochmueller EM; Raeth CW; Link TM
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2009 Jan; 29(1):132-40. PubMed ID: 19097112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.
Greenman RL; Shirosky JE; Mulkern RV; Rofsky NM
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2003 Jun; 17(6):648-55. PubMed ID: 12766893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla preoperative MRI of the wrist in patients with ulnar-sided wrist pain.
Anderson ML; Skinner JA; Felmlee JP; Berger RA; Amrami KK
J Hand Surg Am; 2008 Sep; 33(7):1153-9. PubMed ID: 18762112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Characterization of adrenal lesions using chemical shift MRI: comparison between 1.5 Tesla and two echo time pair selection at 3.0 Tesla MRI.
Nakamura S; Namimoto T; Morita K; Utsunomiya D; Oda S; Nakaura T; Hirai T; Yamashita Y
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2012 Jan; 35(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 22002867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Brainstem lesions in clinically isolated syndromes.
Tintore M; Rovira A; Arrambide G; Mitjana R; Río J; Auger C; Nos C; Edo MC; Castilló J; Horga A; Perez-Miralles F; Huerga E; Comabella M; Sastre-Garriga J; Montalban X
Neurology; 2010 Nov; 75(21):1933-8. PubMed ID: 21098409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
Butler RS; Chen C; Vashi R; Hooley RJ; Philpotts LE
World J Radiol; 2013 Aug; 5(8):285-94. PubMed ID: 24003354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of 3D-TOF-MRA at 3.0 Tesla in the characterization of the angioarchitecture of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: a preliminary study.
Heidenreich JO; Schilling AM; Unterharnscheidt F; Stendel R; Hartlieb S; Wacker FK; Schlattmann P; Wolf KJ; Bruhn H
Acta Radiol; 2007 Jul; 48(6):678-86. PubMed ID: 17611878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Water excitation MPRAGE: an alternative sequence for postcontrast imaging of the abdomen in noncooperative patients at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla MRI.
Altun E; Semelka RC; Dale BM; Elias J
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2008 May; 27(5):1146-54. PubMed ID: 18425826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the brainstem.
Han JS; Bonstelle CT; Kaufman B; Benson JE; Alfidi RJ; Clampitt M; Van Dyke C; Huss RG
Radiology; 1984 Mar; 150(3):705-12. PubMed ID: 6695071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Toward imaging the body at 10.5 tesla.
Ertürk MA; Wu X; Eryaman Y; Van de Moortele PF; Auerbach EJ; Lagore RL; DelaBarre L; Vaughan JT; Uğurbil K; Adriany G; Metzger GJ
Magn Reson Med; 2017 Jan; 77(1):434-443. PubMed ID: 27770469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Initial experience of 3 Tesla versus conventional field strength magnetic resonance imaging of small functioning pituitary tumours.
Stobo DB; Lindsay RS; Connell JM; Dunn L; Forbes KP
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf); 2011 Nov; 75(5):673-7. PubMed ID: 21609346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Rapid whole-brain magnetic resonance imaging with isotropic resolution at 3 Tesla.
Edelman RR; Dunkle E; Koktzoglou I; Griffin A; Russell EJ; Ankenbrandt W; Ragin A; Carrillo A
Invest Radiol; 2009 Jan; 44(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 19060723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
