ArticlePloS one2021
Accelerating whole-heart 3D T2 mapping: Impact of undersampling strategies and reconstruction techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- T2 mapping in myocardial disease: a comprehensive review.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Review
- A revisit of the k-space filtering effects of magnetization-prepared 3D FLASH and balanced SSFP acquisitions: Analytical characterization of the point spread functions.Magnetic resonance imaging · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to determine an advantageous approach for the acceleration of high spatial resolution 3D cardiac T2 relaxometry data by comparing the performance of different undersampling patterns and reconstruction methods over a range of acceleration rates.
methodsMulti-volume 3D high-resolution cardiac images were acquired fully and undersampled retrospectively using 1) optimal CAIPIRINHA and 2) a variable density random (VDR) sampling. Data were reconstructed using 1) multi-volume sensitivity encoding (SENSE), 2) joint-sparsity SENSE and 3) model-based SENSE. Four metrics were calculated on 3 naïve swine and 8 normal human subjects over a whole left-ventricular region of interest: root-mean-square error (RMSE) of image signal intensity, RMSE of T2, the bias of mean T2, and standard deviation (SD) of T2. Fully sampled data and volume-by-volume SENSE with standard equally spaced undersampling were used as references. The Jaccard index calculated from one swine with acute myocardial infarction (MI) was used to demonstrate preservation of segmentation of edematous tissues with elevated T2.
resultsIn naïve swine and normal human subjects, all methods had similar performance when the net reduction factor (Rnet) <2.5. VDR sampling with model-based SENSE showed the lowest RMSEs (10.5%-14.2%) and SDs (+1.7-2.4 ms) of T2 when Rnet>2.5, while VDR sampling with the joint-sparsity SENSE had the lowest bias of mean T2 (0.0-1.1ms) when Rnet>3. The RMSEs of parametric T2 values (9.2%-24.6%) were larger than for image signal intensities (5.2%-18.4%). In the swine with MI, VDR sampling with either joint-sparsity or model-based SENSE showed consistently higher Jaccard index for all Rnet (0.71-0.50) than volume-by-volume SENSE (0.68-0.30).
conclusionsRetrospective exploration of undersampling and reconstruction in 3D whole-heart T2 parametric mapping revealed that maps were more sensitive to undersampling than images, presenting a more stringent limiting factor on Rnet. The combination of VDR sampling patterns with model-based or joint-sparsity SENSE reconstructions were more robust for Rnet>3.
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.