Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34748660›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2022

Implementation and prospective clinical validation of AI-based planning and shimming techniques in cardiac MRI.

Masoud Edalati, Yuan Zheng, Mary P Watkins, Junjie Chen, Liu Liu, Shuheng Zhang, Yanli Song, Samira Soleymani, Daniel J Lenihan, Gregory M Lanza

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Fully automated free-breathing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3T: A prospective randomized study of image quality, efficiency, and workflow burden.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Fully Automated Plane Prescription in Cardiac MRI: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Masoud EdalatiUnited Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA.
Yuan ZhengUnited Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA.
Mary P WatkinsCardiology Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Junjie ChenCardiology Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Liu LiuUnited Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA.
Shuheng ZhangUnited Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA.
Yanli SongUnited Imaging Healthcare America, Inc., Houston, Texas, USA.
Samira SoleymaniDepartment of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Daniel J LenihanCardiology Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Gregory M LanzaCardiology Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · USActua · CA

Funding

Project 2 - Radiation-Induced Treatment of Multiple Myeloma using NanoparticlesU54CA199092 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DIPERSIO, JOHN F. · 2015 to 2019
$11.5M
OVERCOMING THE PROTECTIVE BARRIERS OF BREAST CANCER IN BONE MARROW WITH TARGETED PRODRUG NANOTHERAPYR01CA216840 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LANZA, GREGORY M, WEILBAECHER, KATHERINE NELSON · 2018 to 2022
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA216840NCI NIH HHS U54 CA199092NIH HHS R01 CA216840-01A1NIH HHS U54 CA199092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a vital diagnostic tool in the management of cardiovascular diseases. The advent of advanced CMR technologies combined with artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to simplify imaging, reduce image acquisition time without compromising image quality (IQ), and improve magnetic field uniformity. Here, we aim to implement two AI-based deep learning techniques for automatic slice alignment and cardiac shimming and evaluate their performance in clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsTwo deep neural networks were developed, trained, and validated on pre-acquired cardiac MRI datasets (>500 subjects) to achieve automatic slice planning and shimming (implemented in the scanner) for CMR. To examine the performance of our automated cardiac planning (EasyScan) and AI-based shim (AI shim), two prospective studies were performed subsequently. For the EasyScan validation, 10 healthy subjects underwent two identical CMR protocols: with manual cardiac planning and with AI-based EasyScan to assess protocol scan time difference and accuracy of cardiac plane prescriptions on a 1.5 T clinical MRI scanner. For the AI shim validation, a total of 20 subjects were recruited: 10 healthy and 10 cardio-oncology patients with referrals for a CMR examination. Cine images were obtained with standard cardiac volume shim and with AI shim to assess signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), overall IQ (sharpness and MR image degradation), ejection fraction (EF), and absolute wall thickening. A hybrid statistical method using of nonparametric (Wilcoxon) and parametric (t-test) assessments was employed for statistical analyses.

resultsCMR protocol with AI-based plane prescriptions, EasyScan, minimized operator dependence and reduced overall scanning time by over 2 min (∼13 % faster, p < 0.001) compared to the protocol with manual cardiac planning. EasyScan plane prescriptions also demonstrated more accurate (less plane angulation errors from planes manually prescribed by a certified cardiac MRI technologist) cardiac planes than previously reported strategies. Additionally, AI shim resulted in improved B0 field homogeneity. Cine images obtained with AI shim revealed a significantly higher SNR (12.49%; p = 0.002) than those obtained with volume shim (volume shim: 32.90 ± 7.42 vs. AI shim: 37.01 ± 8.87) for the left ventricle (LV) myocardium. LV myocardium CNR was 12.48% higher for cine imaging with AI shim (149.02 ± 39.15) than volume shim (132.49 ± 33.94). Images obtained with AI shim resulted in sharper images than those obtained with volume shim (p = 0.012). The LVEF and absolute wall thickening also showed that differences exist between the two shimming methods. The LVEF by AI shim was shown to be slightly larger than LVEF by volume shim in two groups: 2.87% higher with AI shim for the healthy group and 1.70% higher with AI shim for the patient group. The LV absolute wall thickening (in mm) also showed that differences exist between shimming methods for each group with larger changes observed in the patient group (healthy: 3.31%, p = 0.234 and patient group: 7.29%, p = 0.059).

conclusionsCMR exams using EasyScan for cardiac planning demonstrated accelerated cardiac exam compared to the CMR protocol with manual cardiac planning. Improved and more uniform B0 magnetic field homogeneity also achieved using AI shim technique compared to volume shimming.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMagnetic Resonance ImagingHeartHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsStroke VolumeAI-based cardiac planningAI-based cardiac shimartificial intelligence

Identifiers

PMID34748660
PMCPMC9299210
OpenAlexW3211857043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.