ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2021
A phantom study comparing radial trajectories for accelerated cardiac 4D flow MRI against a particle imaging velocimetry reference.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Dynamic 3D MRI for Urodynamics Assessment Using an Anatomically Realistic In Vitro Model of the Bladder.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2024Article
- Silicone-based materials with tailored MR relaxation characteristics for use in reduced coil visibility and in tissue-mimicking phantom design.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Clinical Applications of 4D Flow MRI in the Portal Venous System.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Review
- Sildenafil administration improves right ventricular function on 4D flow MRI in young adults born premature.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRadial sampling is one method to accelerate 4D flow MRI acquisition, making feasible dual-velocity encoding (Venc) assessment of slow flow in the left ventricle (LV). Here, two radial trajectories are compared in vitro for this application: 3D radial (phase-contrast vastly undersampled isotropic projection, PC-VIPR) versus stack of stars (phase-contrast stack of stars, PC-SOS), with benchtop particle imaging velocimetry (PIV) serving as a reference standard.
methodsThe study contained three steps: (1) Construction of an MRI- and PIV-compatible LV model from a healthy adult's CT images. (2) In vitro PIV using a pulsatile flow pump. (3) In vitro dual-Venc 4D flow MRI using PC-VIPR and PC-SOS (two repeat experiments). Each MR image set was retrospectively undersampled to five effective scan durations and compared with the PIV reference. The root-mean-square velocity vector difference (RMSE) between MRI and PIV images was compared, along with kinetic energy (KE) and wall shear stress (WSS).
resultsRMSE increased as scan time decreased for both MR acquisitions. RMSE was 3% lower in PC-SOS images than PC-VIPR images in 30-min scans (3.8 vs. 3.9 cm/s) but 98% higher in 2.5-min scans (9.5 vs. 4.8 cm/s). PIV intrasession repeatability showed a RMSE of 4.4 cm/s, reflecting beat-to-beat flow variation, while MRI had intersession RMSEs of 3.8/3.5 cm/s for VIPR/SOS, respectively. Speed, KE, and WSS were overestimated voxel-wise in 30-min MRI scans relative to PIV by 0.4/0.3 cm/s, 0.2/0.1 μJ/mL, and 36/43 mPa, respectively, for VIPR/SOS.
conclusionsPIV is feasible for application-specific 4D flow MRI protocol optimization. PC-VIPR is better-suited to dual-Venc LV imaging with short scan times.
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.