Breast MR Imaging at 3 T with Dual-Source Radiofrequency Transmission Offers Superior B<sub>1</sub>Homogeneity: An Intraindividual Comparison with Breast MR Imaging at 1.5 T
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare B1 homogeneity for breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed at 3 T with dual-source radiofrequency (RF) transmission to 1.5-T MR imaging and 3-T MR imaging with quadrature transmission. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study received institutional review board approval and patients provided informed consent. Women (n = 25; mean age, 53 years; range, 30-68 years) suspected of having breast lesions underwent breast MR imaging examinations on comparable 1.5-T and 3-T clinical systems between February and May 2012. B1 maps were obtained at 1.5 T and at 3 T with quadrature and dual-source RF transmission. Intrabreast differences and differences in mean B1 values between right and left breasts were investigated by using two-sided multivariate analysis of variance with interaction; t tests were used to compare the differences between measured whole-breast mean B1 values and requested B1 values. RESULTS: With quadrature transmission at 1.5 T and 3 T, the mean B1 values showed a statistically significant difference: left-breast measured B1 was -8.9% of requested B1 value at 1.5 T and -13.7% at 3 T (P < .001), whereas right-breast measured B1 was +5.4% of requested B1 value at 1.5 T (P < .001) and +2.7% at 3 T (P = .01). With dual-source RF transmission at 3 T, mean B1 values across the breasts were not statistically different, nor were the measured B1 values compared with requested B1 values (left breast, -0.6%; right breast, -0.7%). At 3 T with dual-source transmission, slight intrabreast local variations in B1 were recorded. CONCLUSION: MR imaging at 3 T with dual-source RF transmission offered an overall B1 homogeneity for breast imaging that was better than that obtained at 1.5 T and with quadrature transmission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".