Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32467743›Full record

ArticlePolish journal of radiology2020

Feature-tracking-based strain analysis - a comparison of tracking algorithms.

Daniel Thomas, Julian Luetkens, Anton Faron, Darius Dabir, Alois M Sprinkart, Daniel Kuetting

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 51% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel ThomasUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
Julian LuetkensUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
Anton FaronUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
Darius DabirUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
Alois M SprinkartUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
Daniel KuettingUniversity of Bonn, Germany.
University of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOptical flow feature-tracking (FT) strain assessment is increasingly being employed scientifically and clinically. Several software packages, employing different algorithms, enable computation of FT-derived strains. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the underlying algorithm on the validity and robustness of FT-derived strain results. MATERIAL AND

methodsCSPAMM and SSFP cine sequences were acquired in 30 subjects (15 patients with aortic stenosis and associated secondary hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and 15 controls) in identical midventricular short-axis locations. Global peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS) was calculated using tagging and feature-tracking software with different algorithms (non-rigid, elastic image registration, and blood myocardial border tracing). Intermodality agreement and intra- as well inter-observer variability were assessed.

resultsIntermodality/inter-algorithm comparison for global PSCS using Friedman's test revealed statistically significant differences (tagging vs. blood myocardial border tracing algorithm). Intermodality assessment revealed the highest correlation between tagging and non-rigid, elastic image registration (

conclusionsThe type of algorithm employed during feature-tracking strain assessment has a significant impact on the results. The non-rigid, elastic image registration algorithm produces more precise and reproducible results than the blood myocardium tracing algorithm.

Indexed as

blood-myocardial border tracingmyocardial strainnon-rigid elastic image registrationoptical flow feature tracking

Identifiers

PMID32467743
PMCPMC7247018
OpenAlexW3011571704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.