ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Reference values for 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging of the portal venous system.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical applications of 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging in hepatic vascular disorders: practical biomarkers, protocol design, and translational implementation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Review
- Four-dimensional flow MRI-based prediction of minimal hepatic encephalopathy in patients with liver cirrhosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Four-dimensional flow MRI-based prediction of minimal hepatic encephalopathy in patients with liver cirrhosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- The effects of operative stress in abdominal surgery on portal and arterial visceral circulation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Multiscale modeling of drug-induced liver injury from organ to lobule.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging findings in autoimmune hepatitis: how frequent and reproducible are they?Radiologia brasileiraArticle
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this work was to establish normal reference values for 4D flow MRI-derived flow, velocity, and vessel diameters, and to define characteristic flow patterns in the portal venous system of healthy adult subjects.
methodsFor this retrospective study, we screened all available 4D flow MRI exams of the upper abdomen in healthy adults acquired at our institution between 2012 and 2022 at either 1.5 T or 3.0 T MRI after ≥ 5 h fasting. Flow, velocity, and effective diameter were quantified in the 8 planes in the portal venous system (splenic vein, superior mesenteric vein, main, right, and left portal veins). Vessel delineation was manually adjusted over time. Reference ranges for were defined as the mean ± 2 standard deviations. Three readers noted helical and vortical flow on time-resolved pathline visualizations. Conservation of mass flow analysis was performed for quality assurance.
resultsWe included 44 healthy subjects (26 female, 18-74 years) in the analysis. We report reference values for mean and peak flow, mean velocity, and vessel diameter in the healthy portal vein using 4D flow MRI. Normal flow patterns in the portal vein included faint helical (66%) or linear flow (34%). Conservation of mass analysis demonstrated a relative error of 1.1 ± 4.6% standard deviation (SD) at the splenomesenteric confluence and - 1.4 ± 4.1% SD at the portal bifurcation.
conclusionWe have reported normal hemodynamic values that are necessary baseline data for emerging clinical applications of 4D flow MRI in the portal venous system. Results are consistent with previously published values from smaller cohorts.
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.