Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Riederer S,
   3. Suddarth S,
   4. Bobman S

   . Automated MR image synthesis: feasibility studies. Radiology 1984;153:203–06 doi:10.1148/radiology.153.1.6089265 pmid:6089265

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Warntjes J,
   3. Dahlqvist O,
   4. Lundberg P

   . Novel method for rapid, simultaneous T1, T2*, and proton density quantification. Magn Reson Med 2007;57:528–37 doi:10.1002/mrm.21165 pmid:17326183

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Krauss W,
   3. Gunnarsson M,
   4. Andersson T, et al

   . Accuracy and reproducibility of a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging method for concurrent measurements of tissue relaxation times and proton density. Magn Reson Imaging 2015;33:584–91 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2015.02.013 pmid:25708264

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Warntjes J,
   3. Leinhard O,
   4. West J, et al

   . Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:320–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.21635 pmid:18666127

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Blystad I,
   3. Warntjes J,
   4. Smedby O, et al

   . Synthetic MRI of the brain in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53:1158–63 doi:10.1258/ar.2012.120195 pmid:23024181

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Granberg T,
   3. Uppman M,
   4. Hashim , et al

   . Clinical feasibility of synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1023–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4665 pmid:26797137

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Hagiwara A,
   3. Hori M,
   4. Suzuki M, et al

   . Contrast-enhanced synthetic MRI for the detection of brain metastases. Acta Radiol Open 2016;5:2058460115626757 doi:10.1177/2058460115626757 pmid:26962461

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Betts M,
   3. Leach J,
   4. Jones B, et al

   . Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology 2016;58:1017–26 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1723-9 pmid:27438803

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Struck A,
   3. Westover M

   . Variability in clinical assessment of neuroimaging in temporal lobe epilepsy. Seizure 2015;30:132–35 doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2015.06.011 pmid:26216698

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Wattjes M,
    3. Wijburg M,
    4. Vennegoor A, et al

    . Diagnostic performance of brain MRI in pharmacovigilance of natalizumab-treated MS patients. Mult Scler 2016;22:1174–83 doi:10.1177/1352458515615225 pmid:26564995

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Gulani V,
    3. Schmitt P,
    4. Griswold M

    . Towards a single-sequence neurologic magnetic resonance imaging examination: multiple-contrast images from an IR TrueFISP experiment. Invest Radiol 2004;39:767–74 doi:10.1097/00004424-200412000-00008 pmid:15550838

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Osborn AG,
    3. Salzman KL,
    4. Barkovich AJ

    . Diagnostic Imaging: Brain. 2nd ed. Friesens: Amirsys; 2010
13. 13.↵
    2. Krupa K,
    3. Bekiesińska-Figatowska M

    . Artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Pol J Radiol 2015;80:93–106 doi:10.12659/PJR.892628 pmid:25745524

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Ahn S,
    3. Park SH,
    4. Lee KH

    . How to demonstrate similarity by using noninferiority and equivalence statistical testing in radiology research. Radiology 2013;267:328–38 doi:10.1148/radiol.12120725 pmid:23610094

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Tha K,
    3. Terae S,
    4. Kudo K, et al

    . Differential diagnosis of hyperintense cerebrospinal fluid on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images of the brain, Part II: non-pathological conditions. Br J Radiol 2009;82:610–14 doi:10.1259/bjr/29238647 pmid:19541945

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    2. Tha K,
    3. Terae S,
    4. Kudo K, et al

    . Differential diagnosis of hyperintense cerebrospinal fluid on fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images of the brain, Part I: pathological conditions. Br J Radiol 2009;82:426–34 pmid:19386961

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Ogbole G,
    3. Soneye M,
    4. Okorie C, et al

    . Intraventricular cerebrospinal fluid pulsation artifacts on low-field magnetic resonance imaging: potential pitfall in diagnosis? Niger Med J 2016;57:59–63 doi:10.4103/0300-1652.180565 pmid:27185981

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Hakky M,
    3. Pandey S,
    4. Kwak E, et al

    . Application of basic physics principles to clinical neuroradiology: differentiating artifacts from true pathology on MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:369–77 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.10394 pmid:23883218

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Andre J,
    3. Bresnahan B,
    4. Mossa-Basha M, et al

    . Toward quantifying the prevalence, severity, and cost associated with patient motion during clinical MR examinations. J Am Coll Radiol 2015;12:689–95 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.03.007 pmid:25963225

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Dagher AP,
    3. Smirniotopoulos J

    . Tumefactive demyelinating lesions. Neuroradiology 1996;38:560–65 doi:10.1007/BF00626098 pmid:8880719

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Mabray M,
    3. Cohen B,
    4. Villanueva-Meyer J, et al

    . Performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values and conventional MRI features in differentiating tumefactive demyelinating lesions from primary brain neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:1075–85 doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13970 pmid:26496556

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Atighechi S,
    3. Zolfaghari A,
    4. Baradaranfar M, et al

    . Estimation of sensitivity and specificity of brain magnetic resonance imaging and single photon emission computed tomography in the diagnosis of olfactory dysfunction after head traumas. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2013;27:403–06 doi:10.2500/ajra.2013.27.3931 pmid:24119604

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Wollman D

    . Sensitivity and specificity of neuroimaging for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2003;5:89–99 pmid:22033599

    PubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Sabol Z,
    3. Resić B,
    4. Juraski R, et al

    . Clinical sensitivity and specificity of multiple T2-hyperintensities on brain magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1 in children: diagnostic accuracy study. Croat Med J 2011;52:488–96 doi:10.3325/cmj.2011.52.488 pmid:21853543

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Polman C,
    3. Reingold S,
    4. Banwell B, et al

    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302 doi:10.1002/ana.22366 pmid:21387374

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Zaitsev M,
    3. Maclaren J,
    4. Herbst M

    . Motion artifacts in MRI: a complex problem with many partial solutions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:887–901 doi:10.1002/jmri.24850 pmid:25630632

    CrossRefPubMed