Lower-field MRI

For more than 20 years, the clinical standard for MR imaging has been either 1.5T or 3T. While many of the physical advantages of low field have been well known in the scientific community, the push for higher SNR favored higher fields. However, in the light of technical improvements, other metrics may be favored. Improvements in image reconstruction – from parallel imaging and compressed sensing to deep learning – mean that clinicians can make optimal use of the available signal while exploiting the physical advantages of low-field MRI, such as reduced artifacts.
If SNR is sufficient at two different fields, then the focus may fall instead on diagnostic or financial value.
Scientific literature even back in the mid 1990s showed no significant difference in diagnostic sensitivity or specificity between 1.5T and lower-field systems1. As scanner costs typical scales with field strength, lower field scanners offer opportunities given the cost pressure in many healthcare systems. All these factors could help bring MRI to places it has not been before – spreading into new geographical and clinical areas.

Improving the Assessment of the Postoperative Spine with 0.55T MRI

Hanns-Christian Breit, M.D.; et al. (Dept. of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland)

MAGNETOM Free.Max: Keeping a Hot System Cool

Stephan Biber, Ph.D. (Senior System Architect at Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany)

Krishna S. Nayak, Ph.D. (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

ISMRM Lunch Symposium 2021

Preview case study

Stephan Biber (Senior System Architect, Siemens Healthineers)

article preview

Simon Calvert, CEng FIMechE (Head of Product Innovation & Chief Technology Officer, Siemens Healthineers, Oxford, UK)

Preview  Case Study
Current Status of MRI in India preview

Raju Sharma, MD; Devasenathipathy Kandasamy, MD; and Ankur Goyal, MD (All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India)

Preview Dütting

Tanja Dütting, Stephan Clasen
(Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kreiskliniken Reutlingen, Germany)

Preview Vaussy

Alexis Vaussy, Thomas Troalen, et al.
(Siemens Healthineers, Saint-Denis, France)

Preview Fischer

André Fischer
(Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany)

Preview Runge

Val M. Runge and Johannes T. Heverhagen
(University Hospital of Bern, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland)

case study preview

Domenico Zacà; Guido Buonincontri
(Siemens Healthineers, Italy)

Val M. Runge
(University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, Switzerland)

Hersh Chandarana (NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA)

Preview Dunet

Vincent Dunet, et al.
(Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland)

Elmar Merkle (University Hospital Basel, Switzerland)

Preview Kazmierczak

Philipp M. Kazmierczak, et al.
(Klinik und Poliklinik für Radiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Germany)

Preview Campbell-Washburn

Adrienne E. Campbell-Washburn; Robert J Lederman; Robert S. Balaban
(Division of Intramural Research, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA)

Adrienne Campbell-Washburn
(NIH, Nat. Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Burnsville, MN, USA)

Adrienne Campbell-Washburn (NIH, Nat. Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA)

Sebastian Bickelhaupt (University Hospital Erlangen, Germany)

Preview Salameh

Najat Salameh, Ph.D. and Mathieu Sarracanie, Ph.D.
(Center for Adaptable MRI Technology, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Switzerland)

Najat Salameh and Mathieu Sarracanie (Center for Adaptable MRI Technology, University of Basel, Switzerland)

Vikas Gulani (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

Nicole Seiberlich (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)

MAGNETOM Flash Free MAx Edition Preview