Home › Research › Treatments
Regional Variability in MRI Scans with Different Magnetic Field Strengths in Japan: Implications for Healthcare Preparedness for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment
Sato K, Niimi Y, Ihara R, Iwata A, Iwatsubo T.. Biomedicines, 2024-08-16
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
1.5T MRI was the most common magnetic field strength, remaining stable from FY2015 to FY2021. 3.0T MRI usage slightly increased, although the COVID-19 pandemic in FY2020 led to a maximum reduction of 5%. Prefecture-level variance was higher for 3.0T MRIs, with more frequent usage in western Japan. (4) This study highlights prefecture-level variance in MRI usage across Japan. The insights gained could be instrumental in improving healthcare preparedness for anti-amyloid treatment and patient management.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sato, K., Niimi, Y., Ihara, R., Iwata, A., & Iwatsubo, T. (2024). Regional Variability in MRI Scans with Different Magnetic Field Strengths in Japan: Implications for Healthcare Preparedness for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment. Biomedicines. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12081870
Vancouver
Sato K, Niimi Y, Ihara R, Iwata A, Iwatsubo T. Regional Variability in MRI Scans with Different Magnetic Field Strengths in Japan: Implications for Healthcare Preparedness for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment. Biomedicines. 2024. doi:10.3390/biomedicines12081870. PMID: 39200334.
BibTeX
@article{sato2024-39200334,
author = {Sato, K. and Niimi, Y. and Ihara, R. and Iwata, A. and Iwatsubo, T.},
title = {{Regional Variability in MRI Scans with Different Magnetic Field Strengths in Japan: Implications for Healthcare Preparedness for Alzheimer's Disease Treatment}},
journal = {Biomedicines},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3390/biomedicines12081870},
pmid = {39200334},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12081870}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 1.5T MRI was the most common magnetic field strength, remaining stable from FY2015 to FY2021. 3.0T MRI usage slightly increased, although the COVID-19 pandemic in FY2020 led to a maximum reduction of 5%.
- Prefecture-level variance was higher for 3.0T MRIs, with more frequent usage in western Japan.
- (4) This study highlights prefecture-level variance in MRI usage across Japan.
- The insights gained could be instrumental in improving healthcare preparedness for anti-amyloid treatment and patient management.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Effect sizeor 3.0
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Biomedicines) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39200334) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “japan”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “japan”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.