ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2023
The Interfield Strength Agreement of Left Ventricular Strain Measurements at 1.5 T and 3 T Using Cardiac MRI Feature Tracking.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Deep Learning for Cardiac Wall Motion Analysis: A Review of Methods, Challenges, and Clinical Applications.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Challenges of Classifying Stage B Heart Failure in a High-Risk Population.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Inter-technique agreement of left atrial and ventricular deformation analysis: a comparison between transthoracic echocardiography and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging.Echo research and practice · 2025Article
- Is atrial fibrillation in HFpEF a distinct phenotype? Insights from multiparametric MRI and circulating biomarkers.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Ethnic differences in cardiac structure and function assessed by MRI in healthy South Asian and White European people: A UK Biobank Study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Article
- Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in post myocardial infarction patients: a myocardial magnetic resonance (MR) tissue tracking study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular (LV) strain measurements can be derived using cardiac MRI from routinely acquired balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP) cine images. PURPOSE: To compare the interfield strength agreement of global systolic strain, peak strain rates and artificial intelligence (AI) landmark-based global longitudinal shortening at 1.5 T and 3 T. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: A total of 22 healthy individuals (mean age 36 ± 12 years; 45% male) completed two cardiac MRI scans at 1.5 T and 3 T in a randomized order within 30 minutes. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: bSSFP cine images at 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Two software packages, Tissue Tracking (cvi42, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging) and QStrain (Medis Suite, Medis Medical Imaging Systems), were used to derive LV global systolic strain in the longitudinal, circumferential and radial directions and peak (systolic, early diastolic, and late diastolic) strain rates. Global longitudinal shortening and mitral annular plane systolic excursion (MAPSE) were measured using an AI deep neural network model. STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparisons between field strengths were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P value < 0.05 considered statistically significant). Agreement was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsMinimal bias was seen in all strain and strain rate measurements between field strengths. Using Tissue Tracking, strain and strain rate values derived from long-axis images showed poor to fair agreement (ICC range 0.39-0.71), whereas global longitudinal shortening and MAPSE showed good agreement (ICC = 0.81 and 0.80, respectively). Measures derived from short-axis images showed good to excellent agreement (ICC range 0.78-0.91). Similar results for the agreement of strain and strain rate measurements were observed with QStrain.
conclusionThe interfield strength agreement of short-axis derived LV strain and strain rate measurements at 1.5 T and 3 T was better than those derived from long-axis images; however, the agreement of global longitudinal shortening and MAPSE was good. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.