Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34393064›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2022

Hyperpolarized

David J Roach, Matthew M Willmering, Joseph W Plummer, Laura L Walkup, Yin Zhang, Md Monir Hossain, Zackary I Cleveland, Jason C Woods

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Analytical corrections for BMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. HyperpolarizedAcademic radiology · 2024
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David J RoachCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Matthew M WillmeringCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Joseph W PlummerCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Laura L WalkupCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Yin ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Md Monir HossainDepartment of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Zackary I ClevelandCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Jason C WoodsCenter for Pulmonary Imaging Research, Division of Pulmonary Medicine and Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio; Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Electronic address: Jason.Woods@cchmc.org.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · US

Funding

UTE MRI to monitor CF lung disease and response to CFTR modulation in young childrenR01HL131012 · NHLBI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI Raouf S. Amin, JASON C WOODS · 2016 to 2026
$6.8M
WT1 REGULATION OF PULMONARY FIBROSISR01HL134801 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI MADALA, SATISH K · 2017 to 2025
$3.9M
Sox9 Regulation of Fibroblast Activation and Pulmonary FibrosisR01HL157176 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI MADALA, SATISH K · 2021 to 2025
$2.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL131012NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL134801NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL157176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleThere is no agreed upon method for quantifying ventilation defect percentage (VDP) with high sensitivity and specificity from hyperpolarized (HP) gas ventilation MR images in multiple pulmonary diseases for both pediatrics and adults, yet identifying such methods will be necessary for future multi-site trials. Most HP gas MRI ventilation research focuses on a specific pulmonary disease and utilizes one quantification scheme for determining VDP. Here we sought to determine the potential of different methods for quantifying VDP from HP MATERIALS AND

methodsHP

resultsAll quantification schemes were able to label visually identifiable ventilation defects in similar regions within all subjects. The VDPs of control subjects were significantly lower (p<0.05) compared to BMT, CF, LAM, and ILD subjects for most of the quantification methods. No one quantification scheme was better able to differentiate individual disease groups from the control group. Advanced statistical modeling of the VDP quantification schemes revealed that in comparing controls to the combined disease group, N4ITK bias-field corrected 60% thresholding had the highest predictive efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity at the VDP cut-point of 2.3%. However, compared to the thresholding quantification schemes, linear binning was able to capture and label subtle low-ventilation regions in subjects with milder obstruction, such as subjects with asthma.

conclusionThe difference in VDP between healthy controls and patients varied between the different disease states for all quantification methods. Although N4ITK bias-field corrected 60% thresholding was superior in separating the combined diseased group from controls, linear binning is able to better label low-ventilation regions unlike the current, 60% thresholding scheme. For future clinical trials, a consensus will need to be reached on which VDP scheme to utilize, as there are subtle advantages for each for specific disease.

Indexed as

AsthmaXenonAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolHumansLungMagnetic Resonance ImagingPulmonary VentilationXenon IsotopesYoung AdultXenonXenon IsotopesHyperpolarized (129)Xe MRILinear binningThresholdingVentilation defect percentage

Identifiers

PMID34393064
PMCPMC8837732
OpenAlexW3195131345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.