ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2019
Whole-heart coronary MR angiography using a 3D cones phyllotaxis trajectory.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Free-Breathing Dynamic, Regularized, Adaptive Cluster Optimization (DRACO) Cine Cardiac MRI in Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Automatic Respiratory and Bulk Patient Motion Corrected 3D Fetal MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Automated detection of cardiac rest period for trigger delay calculation for image-based navigator coronary magnetic resonance angiography.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Article
- High-resolution, respiratory-resolved coronary MRA using a Phyllotaxis-reordered variable-density 3D cones trajectory.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2023Article
- Cardiac MR: From Theory to Practice.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Coronary Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Chronic Coronary Syndromes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Reconstruction of undersampled 3D non-Cartesian image-based navigators for coronary MRA using an unrolled deep learning model.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
- Combined TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a 3D cones steady-state free precession sequence with improved robustness to respiratory motion while mitigating eddy current artifacts for free-breathing whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography.
methodThe proposed sequence collects cone interleaves using a phyllotaxis pattern, which allows for more distributed k-space sampling for each heartbeat compared to a typical sequential collection pattern. A Fibonacci number of segments is chosen to minimize eddy current effects with the trade-off of an increased number of acquisition heartbeats. For verification, phyllotaxis-cones is compared to sequential-cones through simulations, phantom studies, and in vivo coronary scans with 8 subjects using 2D image-based navigators for retrospective motion correction.
resultsSimulated point spread functions and moving phantom results show less coherent motion artifacts for phyllotaxis-cones compared to sequential-cones. Assessment of the right and left coronary arteries using reader scores and the image edge profile acutance vessel sharpness metric indicate superior image quality and sharpness for phyllotaxis-cones.
conclusionPhyllotaxis 3D cones results in improved qualitative image scores and coronary vessel sharpness for free-breathing whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography compared to standard sequential ordering when using a steady-state free precession sequence.
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.