ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2021
Comparing cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain software packages by their abilities to discriminate outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 12-month structured exercise reduces epicardial adipose volume in a frequency-dependent manner and lowers serum M-CSF in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Inter-AI Agreement in Measuring Cine MRI-Derived Cardiac Function and Motion Patterns: A Pilot Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiac Structural and Functional Evaluation Using a Heart Motion Correction Algorithm for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients With High Heart Rates.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Equivalence of feature-tracking-derived myocardial strain across spatial resolution and compressed sensing acceleration.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- TagGen: Diffusion-based generative model for cardiac MR tagging super resolution.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Performance in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Strain Analysis for Aortic Stenosis: Validation with Echocardiography and Healthy Controls.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Prognostic significance of left atrial strain combined with left ventricular strain using cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Heart and vessels · 2024Article
- Deformable cardiac surface tracking by adaptive estimation algorithms.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- 2021-2022 state of our JCMR.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Review
- Longitudinal CMR assessment of cardiac global longitudinal strain and hemodynamic forces in a mouse model of heart failure.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: CT and MR from Basics to Advanced Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Regional left ventricular endocardial strains estimated from low-dose 4DCT: Comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Novel Approaches to Imaging the Pulmonary Vasculature and Right Heart.Circulation research · 2022Review
- Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging in Formerly Preeclamptic Women for Early Detection of Subclinical Myocardial Abnormalities: A 2022 Update.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Confounders, diagnostic accuracy, and reproducibility in cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking-derived left atrial strain: A Berlin Research Network for cardiovascular magnetic resonance multi-software, multi-site comparison.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) myocardial strain analysis using feature tracking (FT) is an increasingly popular method to assess cardiac function. However, different software packages produce different strain values from the same images and there is little guidance regarding which software package would be the best to use. We explored a framework under which different software packages could be compared and used based on their abilities to differentiate disease from health and differentiate disease severity based on outcome.
methodTo illustrate this concept, we compared 4-chamber left ventricular (LV) peak longitudinal strain (GLS) analyzed from retrospective electrocardiogram gated cine imaging performed on 1.5 T CMR scanners using three CMR post-processing software packages in their abilities to discriminate a group of 45 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) from 26 controls without cardiovascular disease and to discriminate disease severity based on outcomes. The three different post-processing software used were SuiteHeart, cvi42, and DRA-Trufistrain.
resultsAll three software packages were able to distinguish HFpEF patients from controls. 4-chamber peak GLS by SuiteHeart was shown to be a better discriminator of adverse outcomes in HFpEF patients than 4-chamber GLS derived from cvi42 or DRA-Trufistrain.
conclusionWe illustrated a framework to compare feature tracking GLS derived from different post-processing software packages. Publicly available imaging data sets with outcomes would be important to validate the growing number of CMR-FT software packages.
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.