Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31957927›Full record

ArticleNMR in biomedicine2020

Pseudo-spiral sampling and compressed sensing reconstruction provides flexibility of temporal resolution in accelerated aortic 4D flow MRI: A comparison with k-t principal component analysis.

Lukas M Gottwald, Eva S Peper, Qinwei Zhang, Bram F Coolen, Gustav J Strijkers, Aart J Nederveen, Pim van Ooij

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NMR in biomedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Third trimester fetal 4D flow MRI with motion correction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of 2D and 4D Flow MRI in Neonates Without General Anesthesia.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2023
    Article
  13. International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lukas M GottwaldDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7394-821X
Eva S PeperDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6571-3341
Qinwei ZhangDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1777-8164
Bram F CoolenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3946-653X
Gustav J StrijkersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6700-5058
Aart J NederveenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-973X
Pim van OoijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8755-0192
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTime-resolved three-dimensional phase contrast MRI (4D flow) of aortic blood flow requires acceleration to reduce scan time. Two established techniques for highly accelerated 4D flow MRI are k-t principal component analysis (k-t PCA) and compressed sensing (CS), which employ either regular or random k-space undersampling. The goal of this study was to gain insights into the quantitative differences between k-t PCA- and CS-derived aortic blood flow, especially for high temporal resolution CS 4D flow MRI.

methodsThe scan protocol consisted of both k-t PCA and CS accelerated 4D flow MRI, as well as a 2D flow reference scan through the ascending aorta acquired in 15 subjects. 4D flow scans were accelerated with factor R = 8. For CS accelerated scans, we used a pseudo-spiral Cartesian sampling scheme, which could additionally be reconstructed at higher temporal resolution, resulting in R = 13. 4D flow data were compared with the 2D flow scan in terms of flow, peak flow and stroke volume. A 3D peak systolic voxel-wise velocity and wall shear stress (WSS) comparison between k-t PCA and CS 4D flow was also performed.

resultsThe mean difference in flow/peak flow/stroke volume between the 2D flow scan and the 4D flow CS with R = 8 and R = 13 was 4.2%/9.1%/3.0% and 5.3%/7.1%/1.9%, respectively, whereas for k-t PCA with R = 8 the difference was 9.7%/25.8%/10.4%. In the voxel-by-voxel 4D flow comparison we found 13.6% and 3.5% lower velocity and WSS values of k-t PCA compared with CS with R = 8, and 15.9% and 5.5% lower velocity and WSS values of k-t PCA compared with CS with R = 13.

conclusionPseudo-spiral accelerated 4D flow acquisitions in combination with CS reconstruction provides a flexible choice of temporal resolution. We showed that our proposed strategy achieves better agreement in flow values with 2D reference scans compared with using k-t PCA accelerated acquisitions.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPrincipal Component AnalysisAdultAortaFemaleHumansMaleStress, MechanicalSystoleTime Factorscardiovascularcompressed sensingflow quantitationsampling strategies

Identifiers

PMID31957927
PMCPMC7079056
OpenAlexW3003131922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.