185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36431182)
1. More Space, Less Noise-New-generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Systems Can Improve Patient Comfort: A Prospective 0.55T-1.5T-Scanner Comparison.
Rusche T; Vosshenrich J; Winkel DJ; Donners R; Segeroth M; Bach M; Merkle EM; Breit HC
J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic Image Quality of a Low-Field (0.55T) Knee MRI Protocol Using Deep Learning Image Reconstruction Compared with a Standard (1.5T) Knee MRI Protocol.
Lopez Schmidt I; Haag N; Shahzadi I; Frohwein LJ; Schneider C; Niehoff JH; Kroeger JR; Borggrefe J; Moenninghoff C
J Clin Med; 2023 Feb; 12(5):. PubMed ID: 36902704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does bore size matter?-A comparison of the subjective perception of patient comfort during low field (0.55 Tesla) and standard (1.5 Tesla) MRI imaging.
Michael AE; Heuser A; Moenninghoff C; Surov A; Borggrefe J; Kroeger JR; Niehoff JH
Medicine (Baltimore); 2023 Nov; 102(47):e36069. PubMed ID: 38013308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Image Quality of Lumbar Spine Imaging at 0.55T Low-Field MRI is Comparable to Conventional 1.5T MRI - Initial Observations in Healthy Volunteers.
Breit HC; Vosshenrich J; Hofmann V; Rusche T; Kovacs BK; Bach M; Manneck S; Harder D
Acad Radiol; 2023 Nov; 30(11):2440-2446. PubMed ID: 36841743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing Metal Artifact Severity and Ability to Assess Near-Metal Anatomy Between 0.55 T and 1.5 T MRI in Patients with Metallic Spinal Implants-A Scanner Comparison Study.
Seifert AC; Breit HC; Schlicht F; Donners R; Harder D; Jan V
Acad Radiol; 2024 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 38242732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Potential of Stroke Imaging Using a New Prototype of Low-Field MRI: A Prospective Direct 0.55 T/1.5 T Scanner Comparison.
Rusche T; Breit HC; Bach M; Wasserthal J; Gehweiler J; Manneck S; Lieb JM; De Marchis GM; Psychogios MN; Sporns PB
J Clin Med; 2022 May; 11(10):. PubMed ID: 35628923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Abdominal MRI on a Commercial 0.55T System: Initial Evaluation and Comparison to Higher Field Strengths.
Ramachandran A; Hussain HK; Gulani V; Kelsey L; Mendiratta-Lala M; Richardson J; Masotti M; Dudek N; Morehouse J; Panagis KR; Wright K; Seiberlich N
Acad Radiol; 2024 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 38320946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of 12-lead electrocardiogram at 0.55T for improved cardiac monitoring in magnetic resonance imaging.
Kolandaivelu A; Bruce CG; Seemann F; Yildirim DK; Campbell-Washburn AE; Lederman RJ; Herzka DA
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2024 Summer; 26(1):101009. PubMed ID: 38342406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Initial experience with a next-generation low-field MRI scanner: Potential for breast imaging?
Dietzel M; Laun FB; Heiß R; Wenkel E; Bickelhaupt S; Hack C; Uder M; Ohlmeyer S
Eur J Radiol; 2024 Apr; 173():111352. PubMed ID: 38330534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Modern mid-field magnetic resonance imaging in private practice : Field report].
Wujciak D
Radiologe; 2022 May; 62(5):405-409. PubMed ID: 35482042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Economic aspects of low-field magnetic resonance imaging : Acquisition, installation, and maintenance costs of 0.55 T systems].
Vosshenrich J; Breit HC; Bach M; Merkle EM
Radiologe; 2022 May; 62(5):400-404. PubMed ID: 35348808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Advanced deep learning-based image reconstruction in lumbar spine MRI at 0.55 T - Effects on image quality and acquisition time in comparison to conventional deep learning-based reconstruction.
Schlicht F; Vosshenrich J; Donners R; Seifert AC; Fenchel M; Nickel D; Obmann M; Harder D; Breit HC
Eur J Radiol Open; 2024 Jun; 12():100567. PubMed ID: 38711678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Numerical simulations of an integrated radio-frequency/wireless coil design for simultaneous acquisition and wireless transfer of magnetic resonance imaging data.
Overson DK; Bresticker J; Willey D; Robb F; Song AW; Truong TK; Darnell D
Phys Med Biol; 2023 Jun; 68(12):. PubMed ID: 37192635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Acoustic noise generated by TMS in typical environment and inside an MRI scanner.
Nyrhinen MJ; Souza VH; Ilmoniemi RJ; Lin FH
Brain Stimul; 2024; 17(2):184-193. PubMed ID: 38342363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. High-field open versus short-bore magnetic resonance imaging of the spine: a randomized controlled comparison of image quality.
Enders J; Rief M; Zimmermann E; Asbach P; Diederichs G; Wetz C; Siebert E; Wagner M; Hamm B; Dewey M
PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e83427. PubMed ID: 24391767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of image quality and diagnostic efficacy of routine clinical lumbar spine imaging at 0.55T and 1.5/3T.
Lavrova A; Seiberlich N; Kelsey L; Richardson J; Comer J; Masotti M; Itriago-Leon P; Wright K; Mishra S
Eur J Radiol; 2024 Jun; 175():111406. PubMed ID: 38490129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving Patient Comfort in MRI with Predictive Acoustic Noise Cancelling.
Siuryte P; Tourais J; Weingartner S
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2022 Jul; 2022():1468-1471. PubMed ID: 36086391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Acoustic noise reduction in MRI using Silent Scan: an initial experience.
Alibek S; Vogel M; Sun W; Winkler D; Baker CA; Burke M; Gloger H
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2014; 20(4):360-3. PubMed ID: 24808439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Anxiety during magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in relation to scanner design and size.
Ahlander BM; Engvall J; Ericsson E
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):110-116. PubMed ID: 32052788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Characterization of acoustic noise in a neonatal intensive care unit MRI system.
Tkach JA; Li Y; Pratt RG; Baroch KA; Loew W; Daniels BR; Giaquinto RO; Merhar SL; Kline-Fath BM; Dumoulin CL
Pediatr Radiol; 2014 Aug; 44(8):1011-9. PubMed ID: 24595878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
