Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:4044176rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0203860lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4044176lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1979874lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4044176lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0563533lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4044176lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205210lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:dateCreated1985-11-13lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:abstractTextThe relative contrast between two tissues in a magnetic resonance (MR) image is shown to be quantifiable for any combination of pulse timing parameters, provided the intrinsic parameters are known. Based on multiple inversion-recovery and spin echo images, a region-of-interest T1, T2 and density analysis was conducted at 1.4T in selected patients with diagnosed neuropathology for various brain tissues. The resulting tissue parameters subsequently served to calculate the contrast-to-noise (C/N) ratio for typical tissue interfaces as a function of the operator-variable pulse timing parameters and the data were compared with the images. Although such calculations may be useful as a protocol selection aid, it is obvious that an optimized pulse protocol can only be established for a single tissue interface. The data also reveal that a T2-discriminating pulse sequence like Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill with long repetition time, generally advocated as clinically most effective, may not always be ideal.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:monthJullld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:issn0020-9996lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WilliamsA LALlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HaughtonV MVMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DanielsD LDLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CharlesH CHClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MacFallJ RJRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BregerR KRKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WehrliF WFWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:volume20lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:pagination360-9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:dateRevised2009-11-11lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4044176-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4044176-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4044176-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4044176-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:4044176-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:year1985lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:articleTitleQuantification of contrast in clinical MR brain imaging at high magnetic field.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:4044176pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed