ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2019
Automatic correction of background phase offset in 4D-flow of great vessels and of the heart in MRI using a third-order surface model.
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. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation With 2D and 4D-Flow MRI: Comparison of Different Methods in Adult Patients With Ebstein's Anomaly.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Association of Impaired Left Ventricular Mitral Filling from 4D Flow Cardiac MRI and Prognosis of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2024Article
- Discordance between 2D and 4D flow in the assessment of pulmonary regurgitation severity: a right ventricular remodeling follow-up study.European radiology · 2023Article
- Segmentation of 4D Flow MRI: Comparison between 3D Deep Learning and Velocity-Based Level Sets.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Abdominal applications of quantitative 4D flow MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate an automatic correction method for velocity offset errors in cardiac 4D-flow acquisitions. MATERIALS AND
methodsVelocity offset correction was done in a plane-by-plane scheme and compared to a volumetric approach. Stationary regions were automatically detected. In vitro experiments were conducted in a phantom using two orientations and two encoding velocities (Venc). First- to third-order models were fit to the time-averaged images of the three velocity components. In vivo experiments included realistic ROIs in a volunteer superimposed to a phantom. In 15 volunteers, blood flow volume of the proximal and distal descending aorta, of the pulmonary artery (Qp) and the ascending aorta (Qs) was compared.
resultsOffset errors were reduced after correction with a third-order model, yielding residual phantom velocities below 0.6 cm/s and 0.4% of Venc. The plane-by-plane correction method was more effective than the volumetric approach. Mean velocities through superimposed ROIs of a volunteer vs phantom were highly correlated (r DISCUSSION: An automatic third-order model corrected velocity offset errors in 4D-flow acquisitions, achieving acceptable levels for clinical applications.
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.