ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2019
3D SASHA myocardial T1 mapping with high accuracy and improved precision.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Native myocardial TRadiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Motion-compensated TFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Cardiac MR: From Theory to Practice.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Simultaneous multi-parametric acquisition and reconstruction techniques in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Basic concepts and status of clinical development.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Accelerating whole-heart 3D T2 mapping: Impact of undersampling strategies and reconstruction techniques.PloS one · 2021Article
- Accelerated free-breathing whole-heart 3D TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Faster 3D saturation-recovery based myocardial T1 mapping using a reduced number of saturation points and denoising.PloS one · 2020Article
- Whole-heart TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo improve the precision of a free-breathing 3D saturation-recovery-based myocardial T1 mapping sequence using a post-processing 3D denoising technique.
methodsA T1 phantom and 15 healthy subjects were scanned on a 1.5 T MRI scanner using 3D saturation-recovery single-shot acquisition (SASHA) for myocardial T1 mapping. A 3D denoising technique was applied to the native T1-weighted images before pixel-wise T1 fitting. The denoising technique imposes edge-preserving regularity and exploits the co-occurrence of 3D spatial gradients in the native T1-weighted images by incorporating a multi-contrast Beltrami regularization. Additionally, 2D modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) acquisitions were performed for comparison purposes. Accuracy and precision were measured in the myocardial septum of 2D MOLLI and 3D SASHA T1 maps and then compared. Furthermore, the accuracy and precision of the proposed approach were evaluated in a standardized phantom in comparison to an inversion-recovery spin-echo sequence (IRSE).
resultsFor the phantom study, Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement in terms of accuracy between IRSE and 3D SASHA, both on non-denoised and denoised T1 maps (mean difference -1.4 ± 18.9 ms and -4.4 ± 21.2 ms, respectively), while 2D MOLLI generally underestimated the T1 values (69.4 ± 48.4 ms). For the in vivo study, there was a statistical difference between the precision measured on 2D MOLLI and on non-denoised 3D SASHA T1 maps (P = 0.005), while there was no statistical difference after denoising (P = 0.95).
conclusionThe precision of 3D SASHA myocardial T1 mapping was substantially improved using a 3D Beltrami regularization based denoising technique and was similar to that of 2D MOLLI T1 mapping, while preserving the higher accuracy and whole-heart coverage of 3D SASHA.
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.