3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging:
Gespeichert in:
| Format: | Buch |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Philadelphia, Pa. [u.a.]
Elsevier
2006
|
| Ausgabe: | [Bindeeinheit] |
| Schriftenreihe: | Neuroimaging clinics
16,2 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Beschreibung: | Einzelaufn. e. Zeitschr.-H. |
| Beschreibung: | XVI S., S. 217 - 369 Ill., graph. Darst. |
| ISBN: | 1416035338 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023228561 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 080331s2006 ad|| |||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 1416035338 |9 1-4160-3533-8 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)70671285 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023228561 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-29 | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 616.07548 |2 22 | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |c guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts |
| 250 | |a [Bindeeinheit] | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Philadelphia, Pa. [u.a.] |b Elsevier |c 2006 | |
| 300 | |a XVI S., S. 217 - 369 |b Ill., graph. Darst. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Neuroimaging clinics |v 16,2 | |
| 500 | |a Einzelaufn. e. Zeitschr.-H. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Diagnostic imaging | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Magnetic resonance imaging | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Roberts, Timothy P. L. |e Sonstige |4 oth | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m HBZ Datenaustausch |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016414316&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016414316 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804137520101851136 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | 3.0 T VERSUS 1.5 T IMAGING
Contents
Mauricio Castillo and Suresh K. Mukherji
Timothy P. L. Roberts
Winfried A. Willinek and Christiane K. Kuhl
Since approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, human MR
imaging at field strength up to 4.0 T in clinical practice and up to 8.0 T on research sys¬
tems has become available. Although human MR imaging at field strengths greater than
1.5 T was performed even before 1999 on research systems, the FDA approval for clini¬
cal use and the advent of actively shielded magnets marked a new trend for MR ven¬
dors and users. Because of the potential technical benefits when moving from 1.5 T to
3.0 T, the number of 3.0 T installations is increasing continuously worldwide. This arti¬
cle reviews the benefits, challenges, and the current knowledge of 3.0 T whole body MR
imaging and summarizes its clinical applications.
Robert A. Zimmerman, Larissa T. Bilaniuk, Avrum N. Pollock, Tamara Feygin,
Deborah Zarnow, Erin Simon Schwartz, and Christine Harris
This article represents a review of the authors experience with two 3.0 T Siemens Trio
Whole Body MR imaging units, with a cumulative experience of 12 months total imag¬
ing time on these scanners, over 1000 cases. The authors were able to identify and
review numerous patients who had diagnostic studies both on 1.5 T and 3.0 T.
Vaishali V. Phalke, Sachin Gujar, and Douglas J. Quint
3 T MR imaging brings with it the possibility of a doubled signal-to-noise ratio com¬
pared with 1.5 T systems and the possibility of decreased scan times without reduction
in quality. Higher cost and other issues, however, also need to be examined.
JLQ~X.3ifirsus.l«5 T: Coil Deskin Similarities and Differences 249
Randy Duensing and Jeffrey Fitzsimmons
The advent of large RF coil arrays, multi-channel receivers, and other specialized image
acquisition techniques offer considerable gains in SNR, however, these applications in
combination with higher field strength 3.0 T magnets introduce several challenges. In
addition to higher cost, the 3.0 T requires more training and maintenance, but these
obstacles are offset by its improved diagnostic images and shorter acquisition times.
Thus, 3.0 T magnets have not yet left 1.5 T magnets entirely obsolete, despite the 3.0 T s
ability to double SNR.
.^teW5MiJjMtaai^«DttJ^^MiMJUgtx#iari^FjeW^ , _ ™-«JH3L
Xavier Golay and Esben T. Petersen
Arterial spin labeling (ASL) techniques are MR imaging methods designed to measure
the endogenous perfusion signal coming from arterial blood by manipulation of its
magnetization. These methods are based on the subtraction of two consecutively acquired
images: one acquired after preparation of the arterial blood magnetization upstream to
the area of interest, and the second without any manipulation of its arterial magnetiza¬
tion. The subtraction of both images provides information on the perfusion of the tis¬
sue present in the slice of interest. Because ASL is a very low SNR technique, the shift
from 1.5 T to 3.0 T should be regarded as a great way to increase signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR). Furthermore, the concomitant increase in blood Tl should improve the SNR of
ASL further. Other effects related to poorer magnetic filed homogeneities and reduced
T2 relaxation times, however, will counterbalance both effects partially. In this article,
the pros and cons of the use of ASL at high field are summarized, after a brief descrip¬
tion of the major techniques used and their theoretical limitations. Finally, a summary
of the few existing dedicated ASL perfusion techniques available are presented.
MR Spectroscopy and Spectroscopic Imaging: CompjnillJyUj/ersus 1-5 T - - 2SSL
Ulrike Dydak and Michael Schar
In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MR spectroscopy) offers the unique possibil¬
ity to monitor human brain metabolism in a noninvasive way. At 3.0 T, MR spectroscopy
not only profits from higher available signal compared with 1.5 T, but from increased
chemical shift dispersion as well. These gains may be exchanged into increased spatial
resolution or speed in MR spectroscopic imaging. However, some adverse effects related
to the higher field strength, such as increased field inhomogeneities and sequence
restrictions caused by safety limitations need to be considered. These require protocol
adaptations and technical advances that have not yet fully found their way onto the clini¬
cal platform. If neglected, effects such as chemical shift misregistration at higher field
strength can lead to wrong localizations or loss of signals of certain metabolites, which
can intervene with the diagnostic value of a spectrum. This article tries to give an under¬
standing of the potentials and challenges of MR spectroscopy at the higher field strength
of 3.0 T, and to give insight into new techniques that hopefully soon will become avail¬
able in daily clinical routine to fully exploit all benefits of the higher field strength.
Functional MR Imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T: A Practical Review . ,. 285
Henning U. Voss, Jason D. Zevin, and Bruce D. McCandliss
This article reviews and discusses recent findings in functional MRI at 1.5 and 3.0 T
magnetic field strengths, in research and clinical applications. Particular attention is
paid to comparative studies and to an explanation of the physical and biological
dependencies leading to potential gains and tradeoffs of functional scanning at mag¬
nets with a high field strength.
Comparison of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Measurements at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T
Andrew L. Alexander, Jee Eun Lee, Yu-Chien Wu, and Aaron S. Field
The diffusion properties of biological tissues are independent of magnetic field strength.
Field strength, however, does affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and artifacts of
diffusion-weighted (DW) images, which ultimately will influence the quantitative
and spatial accuracy of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). In this article, the effects of field
strength on DTI are reviewed. The effects of parallel imaging also are discussed. A small
study comparing DTI measurements both as a function of field strength (1.5 T and 3.0 T)
and parallel imaging was performed. Overall, the SNR of the DW images roughly doubled
going from 1.5 T to 3.0 T, and there was a relatively small decrease in SNR (15% to
30%) when parallel imaging was used. The increased SNR at 3.0 T resulted in smaller
variances in the estimated mean diffusivities and fractional anisotropies. As expected,
the amount of echo-planar image distortion roughly doubled going from 1.5 T to 3.0 T,
but was reduced by 50% when using parallel imaging. In summary, DTI studies at 3.0 T
using parallel imaging will provide significantly improved DTI measurements relative
to studies at 1.5 T.
l«l^to %JSi4J. mitatio,Di^fJftHUsLMRlmaair)g»it,Hiflh,FieldStrepfltfjs., „ 311
Robin M. Heidemann, Nicole Seiberlich, Mark A. Griswold, Katrin Wohlfarth,
Gunnar Krueger, and Peter M. Jakob
In medical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging, it is standard practice to use
MR scanners with a field strength of 1.5 Tesla. Recently, an ongoing trend towards higher
field strengths can be observed, with a new potential clinical standard of 3.0 Tesla.
High-field MR imaging, with its intrinsic higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), can enable
new applications for MRI in medical diagnosis, or can serve to improve existing meth¬
ods. The use of high field MRI is not without its limitations, however. Besides SNR,
other unwanted effects increase with a higher field strength. Without correction, these
high field problems can cause a serious loss in image quality. An elegant way to address
these problems is the use of parallel imaging. In many clinical applications, parallel
MRI (pMRI) is part of the standard protocol, as pMRI can enhance virtually every MRI
application without necessarily affecting the contrast behavior of the underlying imag¬
ing sequence. In addition to the speed advantages offered by pMRI, the capability of
parallel imaging to reduce significant high field-specific problems, thereby improving
image quality, will be of major importance.
3.0 T versus 1,5 T MR Angiography.pf the Head and Neck 321
Mark C. DeLano and J. Kevin DeMarco
This article presents the advantages and challenges of MR angiography of the intracra-
nial and extracranial cerebral vasculature at 3.0 T with comparative assessment to 1.5 T
approaches. The physical basis for the superiority of 3.0 T MR angiography is discussed in
the context of evolving technological capabilities afforded by the synergistic advent of
higher field scanners, improved coil design, and parallel imaging. This review emphasizes
3.0 T issues related to noncontrast three-dimensional time of flight MR angiography of the
intracranial circulation, contrast enhanced three-dimensional time of flight MR angiogra¬
phy of the extracranial cerebral vasculature, and carotid plaque characterization.
Sttolte Imaaina at 3.0 T 343
M. Louis Lauzon, Robert J. Sevick, Andrew M. Demchuk, and Richard Frayne
Stroke is a devastating disease with a complex pathophysiology. It is a major cause of
death and disability in North America. To fully characterize its extent and effects, one
requires numerous specialized anatomical and functional MR techniques, specifically
diffusion-weighted imaging, MR angiography, and perfusion-weighted imaging. The
advent of 3.0 T clinical scanners has the potential to provide higher quality information
in potentially less time compared with 1.5 T stroke-specific MR imaging protocols. This
article gives a brief overview of stroke, presents the principles and clinical applications
of the relevant MR techniques required for diagnostic stroke imaging at high field, and
discusses the advantages, challenges, and limitations of 3.0 T imaging as they relate
to stroke.
|
| adam_txt |
3.0 T VERSUS 1.5 T IMAGING
Contents
Mauricio Castillo and Suresh K. Mukherji
Timothy P. L. Roberts
Winfried A. Willinek and Christiane K. Kuhl
Since approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, human MR
imaging at field strength up to 4.0 T in clinical practice and up to 8.0 T on research sys¬
tems has become available. Although human MR imaging at field strengths greater than
1.5 T was performed even before 1999 on research systems, the FDA approval for clini¬
cal use and the advent of actively shielded magnets marked a new trend for MR ven¬
dors and users. Because of the potential technical benefits when moving from 1.5 T to
3.0 T, the number of 3.0 T installations is increasing continuously worldwide. This arti¬
cle reviews the benefits, challenges, and the current knowledge of 3.0 T whole body MR
imaging and summarizes its clinical applications.
Robert A. Zimmerman, Larissa T. Bilaniuk, Avrum N. Pollock, Tamara Feygin,
Deborah Zarnow, Erin Simon Schwartz, and Christine Harris
This article represents a review of the authors' experience with two 3.0 T Siemens Trio
Whole Body MR imaging units, with a cumulative experience of 12 months total imag¬
ing time on these scanners, over 1000 cases. The authors were able to identify and
review numerous patients who had diagnostic studies both on 1.5 T and 3.0 T.
Vaishali V. Phalke, Sachin Gujar, and Douglas J. Quint
3 T MR imaging brings with it the possibility of a doubled signal-to-noise ratio com¬
pared with 1.5 T systems and the possibility of decreased scan times without reduction
in quality. Higher cost and other issues, however, also need to be examined.
JLQ~X.3ifirsus.l«5 T: Coil Deskin Similarities and Differences 249
Randy Duensing and Jeffrey Fitzsimmons
The advent of large RF coil arrays, multi-channel receivers, and other specialized image
acquisition techniques offer considerable gains in SNR, however, these applications in
combination with higher field strength 3.0 T magnets introduce several challenges. In
addition to higher cost, the 3.0 T requires more training and maintenance, but these
obstacles are offset by its improved diagnostic images and shorter acquisition times.
Thus, 3.0 T magnets have not yet left 1.5 T magnets entirely obsolete, despite the 3.0 T's
ability to double SNR.
.^teW5MiJjMtaai^«DttJ^^MiMJUgtx#iari^FjeW^ , _ ™-«JH3L
Xavier Golay and Esben T. Petersen
Arterial spin labeling (ASL) techniques are MR imaging methods designed to measure
the endogenous perfusion signal coming from arterial blood by manipulation of its
magnetization. These methods are based on the subtraction of two consecutively acquired
images: one acquired after preparation of the arterial blood magnetization upstream to
the area of interest, and the second without any manipulation of its arterial magnetiza¬
tion. The subtraction of both images provides information on the perfusion of the tis¬
sue present in the slice of interest. Because ASL is a very low SNR technique, the shift
from 1.5 T to 3.0 T should be regarded as a great way to increase signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR). Furthermore, the concomitant increase in blood Tl should improve the SNR of
ASL further. Other effects related to poorer magnetic filed homogeneities and reduced
T2 relaxation times, however, will counterbalance both effects partially. In this article,
the pros and cons of the use of ASL at high field are summarized, after a brief descrip¬
tion of the major techniques used and their theoretical limitations. Finally, a summary
of the few existing dedicated ASL perfusion techniques available are presented.
MR Spectroscopy and Spectroscopic Imaging: CompjnillJyUj/ersus 1-5 T - - 2SSL
Ulrike Dydak and Michael Schar
In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MR spectroscopy) offers the unique possibil¬
ity to monitor human brain metabolism in a noninvasive way. At 3.0 T, MR spectroscopy
not only profits from higher available signal compared with 1.5 T, but from increased
chemical shift dispersion as well. These gains may be exchanged into increased spatial
resolution or speed in MR spectroscopic imaging. However, some adverse effects related
to the higher field strength, such as increased field inhomogeneities and sequence
restrictions caused by safety limitations need to be considered. These require protocol
adaptations and technical advances that have not yet fully found their way onto the clini¬
cal platform. If neglected, effects such as chemical shift misregistration at higher field
strength can lead to wrong localizations or loss of signals of certain metabolites, which
can intervene with the diagnostic value of a spectrum. This article tries to give an under¬
standing of the potentials and challenges of MR spectroscopy at the higher field strength
of 3.0 T, and to give insight into new techniques that hopefully soon will become avail¬
able in daily clinical routine to fully exploit all benefits of the higher field strength.
Functional MR Imaging at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T: A Practical Review . ,. 285
Henning U. Voss, Jason D. Zevin, and Bruce D. McCandliss
This article reviews and discusses recent findings in functional MRI at 1.5 and 3.0 T
magnetic field strengths, in research and clinical applications. Particular attention is
paid to comparative studies and to an explanation of the physical and biological
dependencies leading to potential gains and tradeoffs of functional scanning at mag¬
nets with a high field strength.
Comparison of Diffusion Tensor Imaging Measurements at 3.0 T versus 1.5 T
Andrew L. Alexander, Jee Eun Lee, Yu-Chien Wu, and Aaron S. Field
The diffusion properties of biological tissues are independent of magnetic field strength.
Field strength, however, does affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and artifacts of
diffusion-weighted (DW) images, which ultimately will influence the quantitative
and spatial accuracy of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). In this article, the effects of field
strength on DTI are reviewed. The effects of parallel imaging also are discussed. A small
study comparing DTI measurements both as a function of field strength (1.5 T and 3.0 T)
and parallel imaging was performed. Overall, the SNR of the DW images roughly doubled
going from 1.5 T to 3.0 T, and there was a relatively small decrease in SNR (15% to
30%) when parallel imaging was used. The increased SNR at 3.0 T resulted in smaller
variances in the estimated mean diffusivities and fractional anisotropies. As expected,
the amount of echo-planar image distortion roughly doubled going from 1.5 T to 3.0 T,
but was reduced by 50% when using parallel imaging. In summary, DTI studies at 3.0 T
using parallel imaging will provide significantly improved DTI measurements relative
to studies at 1.5 T.
l«l^to %JSi4J.'mitatio,Di^fJftHUsLMRlmaair)g»it,Hiflh,FieldStrepfltfjs., „ 311
Robin M. Heidemann, Nicole Seiberlich, Mark A. Griswold, Katrin Wohlfarth,
Gunnar Krueger, and Peter M. Jakob
In medical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging, it is standard practice to use
MR scanners with a field strength of 1.5 Tesla. Recently, an ongoing trend towards higher
field strengths can be observed, with a new potential clinical standard of 3.0 Tesla.
High-field MR imaging, with its intrinsic higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), can enable
new applications for MRI in medical diagnosis, or can serve to improve existing meth¬
ods. The use of high field MRI is not without its limitations, however. Besides SNR,
other unwanted effects increase with a higher field strength. Without correction, these
high field problems can cause a serious loss in image quality. An elegant way to address
these problems is the use of parallel imaging. In many clinical applications, parallel
MRI (pMRI) is part of the standard protocol, as pMRI can enhance virtually every MRI
application without necessarily affecting the contrast behavior of the underlying imag¬
ing sequence. In addition to the speed advantages offered by pMRI, the capability of
parallel imaging to reduce significant high field-specific problems, thereby improving
image quality, will be of major importance.
3.0 T versus 1,5 T MR Angiography.pf the Head and Neck 321
Mark C. DeLano and J. Kevin DeMarco
This article presents the advantages and challenges of MR angiography of the intracra-
nial and extracranial cerebral vasculature at 3.0 T with comparative assessment to 1.5 T
approaches. The physical basis for the superiority of 3.0 T MR angiography is discussed in
the context of evolving technological capabilities afforded by the synergistic advent of
higher field scanners, improved coil design, and parallel imaging. This review emphasizes
3.0 T issues related to noncontrast three-dimensional time of flight MR angiography of the
intracranial circulation, contrast enhanced three-dimensional time of flight MR angiogra¬
phy of the extracranial cerebral vasculature, and carotid plaque characterization.
Sttolte Imaaina at 3.0 T 343
M. Louis Lauzon, Robert J. Sevick, Andrew M. Demchuk, and Richard Frayne
Stroke is a devastating disease with a complex pathophysiology. It is a major cause of
death and disability in North America. To fully characterize its extent and effects, one
requires numerous specialized anatomical and functional MR techniques, specifically
diffusion-weighted imaging, MR angiography, and perfusion-weighted imaging. The
advent of 3.0 T clinical scanners has the potential to provide higher quality information
in potentially less time compared with 1.5 T stroke-specific MR imaging protocols. This
article gives a brief overview of stroke, presents the principles and clinical applications
of the relevant MR techniques required for diagnostic stroke imaging at high field, and
discusses the advantages, challenges, and limitations of 3.0 T imaging as they relate
to stroke. |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023228561 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)70671285 (DE-599)BVBBV023228561 |
| dewey-full | 616.07548 |
| dewey-hundreds | 600 - Technology (Applied sciences) |
| dewey-ones | 616 - Diseases |
| dewey-raw | 616.07548 |
| dewey-search | 616.07548 |
| dewey-sort | 3616.07548 |
| dewey-tens | 610 - Medicine and health |
| discipline | Medizin |
| discipline_str_mv | Medizin |
| edition | [Bindeeinheit] |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01215nam a2200337 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023228561</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080331s2006 ad|| |||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1416035338</subfield><subfield code="9">1-4160-3533-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)70671285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023228561</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">616.07548</subfield><subfield code="2">22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging</subfield><subfield code="c">guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">[Bindeeinheit]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Philadelphia, Pa. [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="b">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="c">2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XVI S., S. 217 - 369</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Neuroimaging clinics</subfield><subfield code="v">16,2</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Einzelaufn. e. Zeitschr.-H.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Diagnostic imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Magnetic resonance imaging</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Roberts, Timothy P. L.</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">HBZ Datenaustausch</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016414316&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016414316</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV023228561 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T20:19:06Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:13:36Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 1416035338 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016414316 |
| oclc_num | 70671285 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-29 |
| owner_facet | DE-29 |
| physical | XVI S., S. 217 - 369 Ill., graph. Darst. |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateSearch | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Neuroimaging clinics |
| spelling | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts [Bindeeinheit] Philadelphia, Pa. [u.a.] Elsevier 2006 XVI S., S. 217 - 369 Ill., graph. Darst. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Neuroimaging clinics 16,2 Einzelaufn. e. Zeitschr.-H. Diagnostic imaging Magnetic resonance imaging Roberts, Timothy P. L. Sonstige oth HBZ Datenaustausch application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016414316&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging Diagnostic imaging Magnetic resonance imaging |
| title | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |
| title_auth | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |
| title_exact_search | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |
| title_exact_search_txtP | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |
| title_full | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts |
| title_fullStr | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts |
| title_full_unstemmed | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging guest ed. Timothy P. L. Roberts |
| title_short | 3.0 T versus 1.5 T imaging |
| title_sort | 3 0 t versus 1 5 t imaging |
| topic | Diagnostic imaging Magnetic resonance imaging |
| topic_facet | Diagnostic imaging Magnetic resonance imaging |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016414316&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertstimothypl 30tversus15timaging |