ライフサイエンスコーパス: contrast material

1 fter imaging (>1 day after administration of contrast material).

2 ine- [P > .12] or gadolinium-based [P > .13] contrast material).

3 e kidney injury in transgenic mice receiving contrast material.

4 me profiles reflecting the administration of contrast material.

5 ike or unknown-type reaction to iodine-based contrast material.

6 ffuse pattern after intravenous injection of contrast material.

7 fat suppression without oral or intravenous contrast material.

8 otocol performed without intravenous or oral contrast material.

9 nate dimeglumine, with 19 patients receiving contrast material.

10 opylene bottle filled with diluted iodinated contrast material.

11 predict enhancing lesions without the use of contrast material.

12 ) clinical-grade VEGFR2-targeted microbubble contrast material.

13 ment of post-CT AKI, regardless of iodinated contrast material.

14 image intervals by using a gadolinium-based contrast material.

15 ing without the need for intravenous or oral contrast material.

16 ons on MRI scans obtained without the use of contrast material.

17 performed without and with gadolinium-based contrast material.

18 in three automated phases after injection of contrast material.

19 of intravenous iodine- and gadolinium-based contrast material.

20 T MR imaging with or without intra-articular contrast material.

21 e fifth dimension represents the dynamics of contrast material.

22 5-T imaging, with or without intra-articular contrast material.

23 e reviewed, including alternative diagnostic contrast materials.

24 g them is to create a composite by combining contrasting materials.

25 seconds after administration of intravenous contrast material (100 mL of iohexol, Omnipaque 350; GE

26 T of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast material (100 mL Omnipaque 350; GE Healthcare,

27 T of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast material (100 mL Omnipaque 350; GE Healthcare,

28 on after administration of low-concentration contrast material (170 mg of iodine per milliliter), and

29 (MR) imaging was performed with and without contrast material 2 or 7 days after ablation.

30 nces were discussed i.e. 1. Gadolinium-based contrast materials, 2. hemoglobin degradation products 3

31 d for all patients who received a dose of CM contrast material 250 mL or greater while they underwent

32 odium) diluted in either saline or iodinated contrast material (50% and full-strength iohexol 300).

33 A total of 140 neonates who received contrast material (59 who underwent CT with iohexol or i

34 rves obtained after injection of microbubble contrast material 6 weeks after beginning pharmacologic

35 The average volume of CM contrast material administered was 172 mL in the control

36 nhancing lesions on MRI scans obtained after contrast material administration are commonly thought to

37 bowel wall arterial phase enhancement after contrast material administration at baseline (rho = -0.5

38 ce breast MRI protocols without the need for contrast material administration in breast screening.Key

39 Intravenous contrast material administration was not associated with

40 ses, reconstruction kernels or timings after contrast material administration) in routine CT imaging

41 patient's renal status precluded intravenous contrast material administration.

42 -weighted imaging, before and 24 hours after contrast material administration.

43 time-varying concentration curves of various contrast material administrations in each organ for diff

44 -gated micro-CT by using both a conventional contrast material and a novel iodinated MMCM.

45 phic (CT) scan of the kidney with the use of contrast material and an iothalamate-based measurement o

46 function using existing MRI systems without contrast material and may assist in providing informatio

47 ence was not significantly different between contrast material and non-contrast material groups in an

48 injected at 2.5 mL/sec; phases 3-4, 40 mL of contrast material and saline injected at 2.5 mL/sec); bo

49 njected in four phases (phases 1-2, 60 mL of contrast material and saline injected at 2.5 mL/sec; pha

50 hantom was filled with nonionic iodine-based contrast material, and a gadolinium-filled capsule repre

51 T MR imaging with or without intra-articular contrast material appears to improve diagnostic accuracy

52 ntravenous and bismuth subsalicylate enteric contrast material at DE CT.

53 precise allocation of high refractive-index contrast materials at independently addressable radial a

54 ty by 10 minutes after the administration of contrast material before plateauing.

55 erformed after intravenous administration of contrast material before tumor resection.

56 The duration of contrast material bolus (0.5 mL/kg of body weight) was 3

57 Duration of contrast material bolus injection does not influence CT

58 bstantial reductions in the use of iodinated contrast material can be achieved by using lower-energy

59 te that multivolume (1)H MR imaging, without contrast material, can be used as a biomarker for region

60 Adherent contrast material coating on these polyps aids in their

61 ermine maximal lesion width and height, oral contrast material coating, segmental location, and compu

62 3-T imaging, with or without intra-articular contrast material compared with 1.5-T imaging, with or w

63 uations, the solutions to which provided the contrast material concentration time curves for each com

64 Quantitative measurements of contrast material concentrations in the colon and polyp

65 ful for salvaging CT studies with suboptimal contrast material delivery or providing additional infor

66 After contrast material delivery, relative percentage of enhan

67 the high-dose cohort, 36 (46%) received a CM contrast material dose between 250 and 299 mL, 29 (37%)

68 ine was seen in two of the four high-dose CM contrast material dose categories: 250-299 mL (decrease

69 ted of comparable patients who received a CM contrast material dose of 75-249 mL during the same peri

70 undergo neuroendovascular procedures with CM contrast material doses of 250 mL or greater.

71 Passive diffusion of contrast material enables quantitative analysis of the f

72 intravenous administration of iodixanol for contrast material enhanced CT was not an independent ris

73 T2 weighted, diffusion weighted, and dynamic contrast-material enhanced) and nerve-sparing robot-assi

74 Intravenous contrast material-enhanced (100 mL of Omnipaque 350; GE

75 ght of these findings, the patient underwent contrast material-enhanced (120 mL of iopromide, Ultravi

76 Intravenous contrast material-enhanced (120 mL of Omnipaque 350; Nyc

77 and pelvis was performed and was followed by contrast material-enhanced (80 mL of iopamidol) computed

78 Baseline arterial phase contrast material-enhanced (CE) MR imaging was used to m

79 background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at contrast material-enhanced (CE) spectral mammography and

80 Contrast material-enhanced (CE) US is a recognized imagi

81 All contrast material-enhanced (contrast group) and unenhanc

82 To evaluate the association between dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted

83 ntiation of cancer from noncancer at dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) breast MRI is improved

84 to moderate for features related to dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) imaging (kappa = 0.266-

85 ast agent for their applicability in dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR)

86 llular carcinoma (HCC) measured with dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR)

87 The authors retrospectively analyzed dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR)

88 e perfusion patterns at quantitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR)

89 with DCIS who underwent preoperative dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging between 2004

90 tion (IRV) in parameters measured at dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) MRI in patients with gl

91 R2)-targeted microbubbles and (b) 3D dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) US by using nontargeted

92 d-attenuated inversion recovery [FLAIR]) and contrast material-enhanced (gadoterate meglumine, 0.1 mm

93 reoperative work-up included a water-soluble contrast material-enhanced (iodixanol, 320 mg of iodine

94 puted tomography (CT)-guided RF ablation and contrast material-enhanced 1-month follow-up CT and/or m

95 [ADC] maps [b < 1000 sec/mm(2)], and dynamic contrast material-enhanced [DCE] MR imaging).

96 es (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, dynamic contrast material-enhanced [DCE] pulse sequences) and sc

97 mography tumor volume and perfusion, dynamic contrast material-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnet

98 of the IMA, the cross-sectional area of the contrast material-enhanced aortic lumen at the level of

99 The amount of necrotic tumor tissue on contrast material-enhanced arterial phase MR images and

100 ining iodine (2, 5, and 15 mg/mL), simulated contrast material-enhanced blood, and soft-tissue insert

101 with brain tumors who underwent nine or more contrast material-enhanced brain magnetic resonance (MR)

102 very, diffusion- and perfusion-weighted, and contrast material-enhanced brain magnetic resonance (MR)

103 All participants underwent equilibrium contrast material-enhanced cardiac MR imaging.

104 Exclusion criteria were contrast material-enhanced chest CT performed for vascul

105 graphic (CT) examination across a library of contrast material-enhanced computational patient models.

106 Contrast material-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) ima

107 titutional review board waiver was obtained, contrast material-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) stu

108 ey from unilateral nephrectomy who underwent contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) at t

109 Unenhanced and contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) imag

110 on tomography (PET) combined with diagnostic contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) in d

111 roid prophylaxis administered 5 hours before contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) is n

112 ars old) underwent unenhanced MR imaging and contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of t

113 -including chest radiography; bone scanning; contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of t

114 Thus, contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of t

115 Contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of t

116 10 patients undergoing either unenhanced or contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) serv

117 Posttreatment evaluation was conducted with contrast material-enhanced computed tomography in the li

118 ation zone was identified with postprocedure contrast material-enhanced computed tomography.

119 h nonenhanced CT to assess calcium score and contrast material-enhanced coronary CT angiography were

120 corticosteroid premedication regimen before contrast material-enhanced CT (n = 1424) from 2008 to 20

121 A contrast material-enhanced CT angiography pulmonary embo

122 A contrast material-enhanced CT angiography pulmonary embo

123 ients with stable kidney function undergoing contrast material-enhanced CT by comparing with a propen

124 Materials and Methods Contrast material-enhanced CT examinations of the chest

125 Results from 88 thoracic and 110 abdominal contrast material-enhanced CT examinations were analyzed

126 66 of 67 (98%) ablated lesions on the first contrast material-enhanced CT images at 4-8-week follow-

127 Texture was assessed for unenhanced and contrast material-enhanced CT images by using a software

128 oved study, gene expression profile data and contrast material-enhanced CT images from 70 patients wi

129 performed per tumor after identification on contrast material-enhanced CT images.

130 dding unenhanced computed tomography (CT) to contrast material-enhanced CT improves the diagnostic pe

131 d radiation dose (RD) and standard dose (SD) contrast material-enhanced CT of the abdomen and to qual

132 derwent molecular profiling and pretreatment contrast material-enhanced CT scans between 2004 and 201

133 Contrast material-enhanced CT was used to assess techniq

134 A total of 179 patients underwent contrast material-enhanced CT, and 66 patients underwent

135 Contrast material-enhanced dual-energy CT and convention

136 Purpose To determine whether single-phase contrast material-enhanced dual-energy material attenuat

137 cinoma at pathologic analysis, who underwent contrast material-enhanced dual-energy nephrographic pha

138 Patients underwent contrast material-enhanced electrocardiography-gated car

139 rying iodinated contrast agent to create the contrast material-enhanced five-dimensional XCAT models,

140 , mass effect, or hydrocephalus (HMH) at non-contrast material-enhanced head computed tomographic (CT

141 the difference in R2* (DeltaR2*) between the contrast material-enhanced images and baseline images.

142 Endoleaks on contrast material-enhanced images were considered the re

143 lower in attenuation than the thyroid on non-contrast material-enhanced images, but patterns differed

144 33.3% for width measurements on T1-weighted contrast material-enhanced images.

145 The neonates who underwent contrast material-enhanced imaging and the neonates who

146 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging before prostatectomy

147 Advanced contrast material-enhanced imaging techniques are capabl

148 Contrast material-enhanced imaging was not available at

149 Contrast material-enhanced imaging was not available at

150 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging) obtained before radi

151 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, and by using the sum

152 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, were included.

153 ighted, diffusion-weighted [DW], and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging.

154 t magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including contrast material-enhanced LGE imaging and T1 mapping.

155 equence paradigm and limited role of dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

156 e-matched control subjects underwent dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

157 Post-PAE prostate ischemia was measured with contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

158 east 10 mm were recruited to undergo dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

159 Contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

160 nts with GBM underwent baseline imaging with contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imagi

161 ured at baseline and after the first TACE on contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance images.

162 Materials and Methods Contrast material-enhanced MR angiography was performed

163 ctor.PurposeTo use 3-T MRI methods including contrast material-enhanced MR angiography, carotid plaqu

164 imensional ablation lengths were measured on contrast material-enhanced MR images, and bone remodelin

165 Delayed contrast material-enhanced MR imaging allowed simultaneo

166 All participants underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging and ultrasonograph

167 ance (MR) imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast material-enhanced MR imaging at baseline and at

168 Women underwent standard dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging for further assess

169 3)Na and DWI sequences were performed before contrast material-enhanced MR imaging in patients with b

170 T2- and T1-weighted dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging was performed befo

171 All studies in which contrast material-enhanced MR imaging was used for asses

172 T2-weighted; diffusion-weighted; and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging with a 3-T imager

173 ighted MR imaging, 0.42 and 0.28; at dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, 0.23 and 0.24, an

174 is: noncontrast MR cholangiopancreatography, contrast material-enhanced MR imaging/MR cholangiopancre

175 All patients underwent a non-contrast material-enhanced MR protocol that included rou

176 qualitative and quantitative BPE at dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI and breast cancer among p

177 cal reference standard and to compare DWI to contrast material-enhanced MRI for the detection of syno

178 wly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, hig

179 Contrast material-enhanced MRI of the brain was performe

180 Contrast material-enhanced MRI of the brain was performe

181 gnosed between 2008 and 2015, had a baseline contrast material-enhanced MRI study, had a pathologic g

182 18 and who underwent preoperative multiphase contrast material-enhanced MRI.

183 s were discovered incidentally at multiphase contrast material-enhanced multidetector computed tomogr

184 The patient underwent contrast material-enhanced multidetector computed tomogr

185 tient underwent erect abdominal radiography, contrast material-enhanced multidetector row computed to

186 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced multiparametric MR imaging of

187 Contrast material-enhanced multiphase MR imaging was per

188 Contrast material-enhanced myocardial perfusion imaging

189 examine the subsequent quantitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced parameters in breast cancer w

190 ges were acquired in unenhanced and standard contrast material-enhanced phases, with observation diam

191 d a gadolinium-filled capsule representing a contrast material-enhanced polyp was positioned on the c

192 ging in comparison with full multiparametric contrast material-enhanced prostate MR imaging in men wi

193 d PET/MR imaging with diffusion-weighted and contrast material-enhanced sequences after unenhanced PE

194 se To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography and brea

195 cer screening: digital breast tomosynthesis, contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography, US (aut

196 rwent staging with single-energy dual-source contrast material-enhanced staging CT between September

197 d clinical prostate protocol, with a dynamic contrast material-enhanced study ( Figs 1 - 3 ).

198 Patients underwent diagnostic contrast material-enhanced study prior to the first dila

199 d clinical prostate protocol, with a dynamic contrast material-enhanced study.

200 dial iron quantification, and unenhanced and contrast material-enhanced T1 mapping.

201 texture features) from the multiparametric (contrast material-enhanced T1-weighted and fluid-attenua

202 using software at T2-weighted MR imaging and contrast material-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging.

203 ension were examined at 1.5 T with a dynamic contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional fast low-an

204 als and Methods In this retrospective study, contrast material-enhanced three-dimensional T1-weighted

205 Preoperative, contrast material-enhanced triphasic CT studies from 89

206 Purpose To demonstrate the feasibility of contrast material-enhanced ulrasonographic (US) nephrost

207 Purpose To assess whether contrast material-enhanced ultrasonography (US) can be u

208 icle describes the successful integration of contrast material-enhanced US into a multimodality appro

209 Targeted contrast material-enhanced US signal was quantified 5 mi

210 Three-dimensional, high-frame-rate, contrast material-enhanced US was achieved by mechanical

211 eft anterior descending artery (LAD), and 20 contrast material-enhanced volume scans were acquired pe

212 -up head dual-energy CT scans obtained after contrast material-enhanced whole-body CT.

213 T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced) and transrectal in-bore MRI-

214 On T1-weighted (unenhanced and contrast material-enhanced), T2-weighted, and DWI (b = 1

215 al oblique and sagittal T2-weighted, dynamic contrast material-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted imagi

216 iparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted, dynamic contrast material-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted seque

217 res of 658 brain metastases from T1-weighted contrast material-enhanced, T1-weighted nonenhanced, and

218 Background MRI with contrast material enhancement is the imaging modality of

219 Purpose To compare contrast material enhancement of glioblastoma multiforme

220 sis showed significant agreement in terms of contrast material enhancement, nonenhancement, necrosis,

221 olumes of interest were placed: regions with contrast material enhancement, regions with highest and

222 between the luminal B subtype and a dynamic contrast material-enhancement feature that quantifies th

223 Contrast material-enhancing vessel wall lesions were ass

224 used to evaluate the causal relation between contrast material exposure and AKI by evaluating patient

225 The effects of contrast material exposure on the rate of acute kidney i

226 The effects of contrast material exposure on the rate of AKI--defined a

227 had higher rates of dialysis and mortality, contrast material exposure was not an independent risk f

228 However, the risk of AKI is independent of contrast material exposure, even in patients with eGFR o

229 ID was defined as an intimal disruption with contrast material-filled outpouching from the aorta lume

230 edge of fluoroscopic anatomy and patterns of contrast material flow guide the planning and execution

231 ticle, provides an alternative to gadolinium contrast material for MR angiography for safe use in chr

232 ents received a bolus injection of 0.2 mL of contrast material for qualitative and quantitative evalu

233 that are assessable by using a noninvasive, contrast material-free, and radiation-free method.

234 ike or unknown-type reaction to iodine-based contrast material from June 1, 2008, to June 30, 2016, w

235 (contrast material group) or unenhanced (non-contrast material group) CT between 2000 and 2010 were i

236 ll patients who underwent contrast-enhanced (contrast material group) or unenhanced (non-contrast mat

237 ntrast material (radiopaque microsphere plus contrast material group), and 70-150-mum radiolucent mic

238 ast material (nonradiopaque microsphere plus contrast material group).

239 different between contrast material and non-contrast material groups in any eGFR subgroup; for the s

240 he suPAR-overexpressing mice that were given contrast material had greater functional and histologic

241 Purpose To investigate whether the use of contrast material has an effect on the detection of new

242 who underwent CT with intravenous iodinated contrast material (ICM) had a similar frequency of acute

243 ren undergoing CT with intravenous iodinated contrast material (ICM).

244 intravenous administration of low-osmolality contrast material in 112.

245 formed without intravenous administration of contrast material in 155 patients and with intravenous a

246 onds after the intravenous administration of contrast material in 27 patients with acute pancreatitis

247 n gadolinium-based and nonionic iodine-based contrast material in a colon phantom by using the charac

248 ureteral flow was defined by the presence of contrast material in the bladder.

249 cal injection protocols, the dynamics of the contrast material in the body were described according t

250 of 1 molar (containing 1 mol/mL gadobutrol) contrast material in the differentiation of malignant an

251 sion A technique to model the propagation of contrast material in XCAT human models was developed.

252 CT AKI by using traditional SCr criteria for contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN; SCr incre

253 as a single bolus; or protocol B, 100 mL of contrast material injected in four phases (phases 1-2, 6

254 , craniocaudal scan direction with 100 mL of contrast material injected intravenously as a single bol

255 olving along with the development of various contrast material injection protocols and multiphasic CB

256 T1 time 12 minutes after contrast material injection was significantly associated

257 T1 time 25 minutes after contrast material injection was significantly associated

258 p a method to incorporate the propagation of contrast material into computational anthropomorphic pha

259 ded intranodal injection of gadolinium-based contrast material into the inguinal lymph nodes, combine

260 ntravenous administration of the iso-osmolar contrast material (IOCM) iodixanol 320 and patients who

261 ith intranodal injection of gadolinium-based contrast material is feasible and can provide useful inf

262 s, the total cumulative dose of iodine-based contrast material is minimized and the risk of acute nep

263 Contrast material is often required to clearly visualize

264 kground Administration of a gadolinium-based contrast material is widely considered obligatory for fo

265 We found that the contrast material maps clearly differentiated the distri

266 Contrast material maps clearly differentiated the distri

267 or cecal location, surface coating with oral contrast material, multiple CAD hits, advanced yet typic

268 , and 70-150-mum radiolucent microspheres in contrast material (nonradiopaque microsphere plus contra

269 the need to consider the effect of iodinated contrast material on the organ doses to patients undergo

270 repeated exposure to radiation, nephrotoxic contrast material, or gadolinium-based contrast agent.(C

271 eported allergy to iodine, iodine-containing contrast material, or shellfish were identified and thei

272 The models with added contrast material propagation can be applied to simulate

273 lution of coexisting mesoscopic domains with contrasting material properties are critical in creating

274 f acquisition and reconstruction parameters, contrast material protocol injections, and radiation dos

275 roup), 70-150-mum radiopaque microspheres in contrast material (radiopaque microsphere plus contrast

276 Five radiologists blinded to the contrast material rated motion on a scale of 1 (no motio

277 he group with nonradiopaque microspheres and contrast material, retained tumoral contrast remained qu

278 In contrast, material shed almost continuously from contine

279 lectron detection can be used to obtain high-contrast, material-specific images of an organic photovo

280 Multivariate analysis showed that contrast material tagging markedly improved serrated pol

281 tologic findings; and presence or absence of contrast material tagging.

282 In contrast, materials that promote alphavbeta3 integrin bi

283 At the time of each reaction to contrast material, the patient's age and sex, whether pr

284 formed without intravenous administration of contrast material to evaluate the brain.

285 d nongated CT images obtained with iodinated contrast material to evaluate trauma 8 years prior showe

286 on in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast med

287 ratio of 2.94 for the lack of rapid initial contrast material uptake and of 2.38 for the lack of was

288 ratio was 4.00 for not having rapid initial contrast material uptake in patients with a personal his

289 Additional contrast material volume administered was 23 mL +/- 12.9

290 Mean and median contrast material volume at index imaging were 24 mL +/-

291 ime to transplantation, waiting list status, contrast material volume at index imaging, and additiona

292 Similar results were obtained when contrast material was added to radiopaque microspheres,

293 For the 80- and 100-kV protocols, 80 mL of contrast material was injected, versus 45 mL for the 70-

294 Surface retention of oral contrast material was noted in all 18 cases.

295 of the sinuses without and with intravenous contrast material was performed.

296 A syringe filled with diluted iodine contrast material was placed into 30-, 35-, and 45-cm-wi

297 ept for micro-CT, which demonstrated soluble contrast material washout over time.

298 ns before and after intravenous injection of contrast material, we measured the evolution of lesional

299 eft ventricles and the severity of reflux of contrast material were assessed.

300 lification is generally tied to high optical contrast materials which limit the applicability of the