A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Prospective Comparison of FOCUS MUSE and Single-Shot Echo-Planar Imaging for Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Evaluating Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO).

Materials And Methods: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation.

Results: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores ( < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) ( < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs ( < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC: 0.925 vs. 0.779; = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI ( = 0.391, < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI ( = 0.645, < 0.001).

Conclusion: FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11444853PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0177DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

focus muse
36
inactive tao
16
epi dwi
16
muse dwi
16
healthy controls
12
image quality
12
dwi
10
focus
9
muse
9
single-shot echo-planar
8

Similar Publications