ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2021
A theoretical framework for retrospective
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.
- Pulmonary Transit Time Can Be Accurately Quantified From Non-Arterial Input Function Series in First-Pass Cardiac Perfusion MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Myocardial blood flow quantification in patients with an implanted cardiodefibrillator during stress and at rest using a wideband perfusion pulse sequence: an initial feasibility study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Article
- A simplified method to correct saturation of arterial input function for cardiac magnetic resonance first-pass perfusion imaging: validation with simultaneously acquired PET.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Article
- Optimal saturation recovery time for minimizing the underestimation of arterial input function in quantitative cardiac perfusion MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop and evaluate a flexible, Bloch-equation based framework for retrospective
methodsOur framework initially calculates the gadolinium concentration [Gd] based on T
resultsCompared with the ground truth [Gd] of phantom, the normalized root-means-square-error (NRMSE) in measured [Gd] was 5.1%, 1.3%, and 0.6% for uncorrected, our corrected, and Kellman's corrected, respectively. For in vivo data, both the peak AIF (7.0 ± 3.0 mM vs. 8.6 ± 7.1 mM, 7.2 ± 0.9 mM vs. 8.6 ± 1.7 mM, 7.7 ± 1.8 mM vs. 10.3 ± 5.1 mM, P < .001) and resting MBF (1.3 ± 0.1 mL/g/min vs. 1.1 ± 0.1 mL/g/min, 1.3 ± 0.1 mL/g/min vs. 1.1 ± 0.1 mL/g/min, 1.2 ± 0.1 mL/g/min vs. 0.9 ± 0.1 mL/g/min, P < .001) values were significantly different between uncorrected and corrected for all 3 patient groups. Both the peak AIF and resting MBF values varied by <5% over the said variations in native T
conclusionOur theoretical framework enables retrospective
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.