5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence

Abstract Objectives To compare 5.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T in patients and healthy volunteers, so as to validate its clinical feasibility. Materials and methods This prospective study included a patient cohort (348 consecutive patients undergoing upper abdominal MRI) and a healthy volunteer cohort (31 volunteers scanned on all three scanners). Two radiologists independently assessed image quality subjectively (5-point Likert scale: anatomical detail, artifacts, overall image quality, diagnostic confidence) and measured signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subjective and objective metrics were compared across field strengths using overall and pairwise comparisons. Results Objective metrics (left/right/mean liver SNR, muscle/spleen SNR, liver-spleen CNR) showed a significant gradient of 5.0 T > 3.0 T > 1.5 T in both cohorts (all p < 0.001). Subjectively, compared with 1.5 T and 3.0 T, 5.0 T received the lowest scores for cardiac motion artifact and liver signal uniformity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and showed greater distortion and ghosting artifacts on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, 5.0 T was significantly superior in anatomical detail, SNR, and overall image quality (all p < 0.05). In patients, 5.0 T also achieved the highest diagnostic confidence ( p < 0.05). Results from healthy volunteers were largely consistent with those from the patient cohort. Conclusion 5.0 T upper abdominal MRI, with a primary focus on liver imaging, is clinically feasible, offering superior anatomical detail, SNR, overall image quality, and diagnostic confidence over 1.5 T and 3.0 T, though cardiac motion artifacts, liver signal inhomogeneity on T2WI, and geometric distortion on DWI require further optimization. Key Points Question Is 5.0-T MRI superior to 1.5 T and 3.0 T for liver imaging, and does its diagnostic benefit differ between diseased and non-diseased livers? Findings 5.0 T provided significantly higher SNR, image quality, and diagnostic confidence than 1.5 T and 3.0 T, despite increased cardiac motion and liver signal inhomogeneity. Clinical relevance 5.0-T MRI significantly improves liver image quality and diagnostic confidence over 3.0 T and 1.5 T, supporting its clinical utility despite increased artifacts that require further optimization .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Radiology
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-026-12874-0
Primary Topic
MRI in cancer diagnosis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence

Danlan Lian, Funan Wang, Anjie Xie, Liuhong Zhu et al.
European Radiology
MRI in cancer diagnosis
article

5.0 T versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T upper abdominal MRI: a prospective two‑cohort study of image quality and diagnostic confidence

Danlan Lian, Funan Wang, Anjie Xie, Liuhong Zhu, Jiaqi Wang, Hao Liu, Jianjun Zhou
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To compare 5.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image quality versus 1.5 T and 3.0 T in patients and healthy volunteers, so as to validate its clinical feasibility. Materials and methods This prospective study included a patient cohort (348 consecutive patients undergoing upper abdominal MRI) and a healthy volunteer cohort (31 volunteers scanned on all three scanners). Two radiologists independently assessed image quality subjectively (5-point Likert scale: anatomical detail, artifacts, overall image quality, diagnostic confidence) and measured signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Subjective and objective metrics were compared across field strengths using overall and pairwise comparisons. Results Objective metrics (left/right/mean liver SNR, muscle/spleen SNR, liver-spleen CNR) showed a significant gradient of 5.0 T > 3.0 T > 1.5 T in both cohorts (all p < 0.001). Subjectively, compared with 1.5 T and 3.0 T, 5.0 T received the lowest scores for cardiac motion artifact and liver signal uniformity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and showed greater distortion and ghosting artifacts on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (all p < 0.05). Nevertheless, 5.0 T was significantly superior in anatomical detail, SNR, and overall image quality (all p < 0.05). In patients, 5.0 T also achieved the highest diagnostic confidence ( p < 0.05). Results from healthy volunteers were largely consistent with those from the patient cohort. Conclusion 5.0 T upper abdominal MRI, with a primary focus on liver imaging, is clinically feasible, offering superior anatomical detail, SNR, overall image quality, and diagnostic confidence over 1.5 T and 3.0 T, though cardiac motion artifacts, liver signal inhomogeneity on T2WI, and geometric distortion on DWI require further optimization. Key Points Question Is 5.0-T MRI superior to 1.5 T and 3.0 T for liver imaging, and does its diagnostic benefit differ between diseased and non-diseased livers? Findings 5.0 T provided significantly higher SNR, image quality, and diagnostic confidence than 1.5 T and 3.0 T, despite increased cardiac motion and liver signal inhomogeneity. Clinical relevance 5.0-T MRI significantly improves liver image quality and diagnostic confidence over 3.0 T and 1.5 T, supporting its clinical utility despite increased artifacts that require further optimization .

European Radiology
Xiamen University (CN), Fudan University (CN), Zhongshan Hospital (CN), United Imaging Healthcare (China) (CN), Xiamen University of Technology (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
MRI in cancer diagnosis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.