ArticleBMC research notes2015
Comparison of semi-automated methods to quantify infarct size and area at risk by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) expert consensus for CMR imaging endpoints in clinical research: part I - analytical validation and clinical qualification.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018Guideline
- Zibotentan in Microvascular Angina: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial.Circulation · 2024Trial
- A three-dimensional computational analysis of magnetic resonance images characterizes the biological aggressiveness in malignant brain tumours.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018Trial
- Automatic segmentation of myocardium at risk from contrast enhanced SSFP CMR: validation against expert readers and SPECT.BMC medical imaging · 2016Trial
- Review
- Histopathological validation of semi-automated myocardial scar quantification techniques for dark-blood late gadolinium enhancement magnetic resonance imaging.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2023Article
- Infarct quantification with cardiovascular magnetic resonance using "standard deviation from remote" is unreliable: validation in multi-centre multi-vendor data.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Article
- A multisystem, cardio-renal investigation of post-COVID-19 illness.Nature medicine · 2022Observational
- Myocardial area at risk and salvage in reperfused acute MI measured by texture analysis of cardiac T2 mapping and its prediction value of functional recovery in the convalescent stage.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Article
- Texture-based probability mapping for automatic scar assessment in late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance images.European journal of radiology open · 2021Article
- Chronic infarct size after spontaneous coronary artery dissection: implications for pathophysiology and clinical management.European heart journal · 2020Article
- The Role of Cardiac MRI in the Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Ischaemic and Non-ischaemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2019Review
- Comparison of myocardial fibrosis quantification methods by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for risk stratification of patients with suspected myocarditis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2019Observational
- BOLD cardiac MRI for differentiating reversible and irreversible myocardial damage in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.European radiology · 2019Article
- Role of cardiac T1 mapping and extracellular volume in the assessment of myocardial infarction.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2018Review
- Subacute cardiac rubidium-82 positron emission tomography (Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Quantification of both the area-at-risk and acute myocardial infarct size in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using T1-mapping.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
- Myocardial Infarct Size by CMR in Clinical Cardioprotection Studies: Insights From Randomized Controlled Trials.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2017Review
- Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging assessment of outcomes in acute myocardial infarction.World journal of cardiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no gold standard technique for quantifying infarct size (IS) and ischaemic area-at-risk (AAR [oedema]) on late gadolinium enhancement imaging (LGE) and T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery imaging (T2w-STIR) respectively. This study aimed to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of IS and AAR quantification on LGE and T2w-STIR imaging using Otsu's Automated Technique (OAT) with currently used methods at 1.5T and 3.0T post acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
methodsTen patients were assessed at 1.5T and 10 at 3.0T. IS was assessed on LGE using 5-8 standard-deviation thresholding (5-8SD), full-width half-maximum (FWHM) quantification and OAT. AAR was assessed on T2w-STIR using 2SD and OAT. Accuracy was assessed by comparison with manual quantification. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities were assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. IS using each technique was correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
resultsFWHM and 8SD-derived IS closely correlated with manual assessment at both field strengths (1.5T: 18.3 ± 10.7% LV Mass [LVM] with FWHM, 17.7 ± 14.4% LVM with 8SD, 16.5 ± 10.3% LVM with manual quantification; 3.0T: 10.8 ± 8.2% LVM with FWHM, 11.4 ± 9.0% LVM with 8SD, 11.5 ± 9.0% LVM with manual quantification). 5SD and OAT overestimated IS at both field strengths. OAT, 2SD and manually quantified AAR closely correlated at 1.5T, but OAT overestimated AAR compared with manual assessment at 3.0T. IS and AAR derived by FWHM and OAT respectively had better reproducibility compared with manual and SD-based quantification. FWHM IS correlated strongest with LVEF.
conclusionsFWHM quantification of IS is accurate, reproducible and correlates strongly with LVEF, whereas 5SD and OAT overestimate IS. OAT accurately assesses AAR at 1.5T and with excellent reproducibility. OAT overestimated AAR at 3.0T and thus cannot be recommended as the preferred method for AAR quantification at 3.0T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.