ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2024
Evaluating a Phase-Specific Approach to Aortic Flow: A 4D Flow MRI Study.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial for "Evaluating a Phase-Specific Approach to Aortic Flow: A 4D Flow MRI Study".Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAortic flow parameters can be quantified using 4D flow MRI. However, data are sparse on how different methods of analysis influence these parameters and how these parameters evolve during systole. PURPOSE: To assess multiphase segmentations and multiphase quantification of flow-related parameters in aortic 4D flow MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: 40 healthy volunteers (50% male, 28.9 ± 5.0 years) and 10 patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm (80% male, 54 ± 8 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 4D flow MRI with a velocity encoded turbo field echo sequence at 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Phase-specific segmentations were obtained for the aortic root and the ascending aorta. The whole aorta was segmented in peak systole. In all aortic segments, time to peak (TTP; for flow velocity, vorticity, helicity, kinetic energy, and viscous energy loss) and peak and time-averaged values (for velocity and vorticity) were calculated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Static vs. phase-specific models were assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Other analyses were performed using phase-specific segmentations for aortic root and ascending aorta. TTP for all parameters was compared to TTP of flow rate using paired t-tests. Time-averaged and peak values were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsIn the combined group, velocity in static vs. phase-specific segmentations differed by 0.8 cm/sec for the aortic root, and 0.1 cm/sec (P = 0.214) for the ascending aorta. Vorticity differed by 167 sec DATA
conclusionStatic 4D flow MRI segmentation yields comparable results as multiphase segmentation for flow-related parameters, eliminating the need for time-consuming multiple segmentations. However, multiphase quantification is necessary for assessing peak values of aortic flow-related parameters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 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.