ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2024
Misclassification of females and males in cardiovascular magnetic resonance parametric mapping: the importance of sex-specific normal ranges for diagnosis of health vs. disease.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical challenges in establishing local native T1 reference ranges in cardiac MRI: a critical review.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Normal myocardial T1, T2 mapping and extracellular volume at 1.5 T in adult Thai population.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular imaging in 2024: review of current research and innovations.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsCardiovascular magnetic resonance parametric mapping enables non-invasive quantitative myocardial tissue characterization. Human myocardium has normal ranges of T1 and T2 values, deviation from which may indicate disease or change in physiology. Normal myocardial T1 and T2 values are affected by biological sex. Consequently, normal ranges created with insufficient numbers of each sex may result in sampling biases, misclassification of healthy values vs. disease, and even misdiagnoses. In this study, we investigated the impact of using male normal ranges for classifying female cases as normal or abnormal (and vice versa). METHODS AND
resultsOne hundred and forty-two healthy volunteers (male and female) were scanned on two Siemens 3T MR systems, providing averaged global myocardial T1 and T2 values on a per-subject basis. The Monte Carlo method was used to generate simulated normal ranges from these values to estimate the statistical accuracy of classifying healthy female or male cases correctly as 'normal' when using sex-specific vs. mixed-sex normal ranges. The normal male and female T1- and T2-mapping values were significantly different by sex, after adjusting for age and heart rate.
conclusionUsing 15 healthy volunteers who are not sex specific to establish a normal range resulted in a typical misclassification of up to 36% of healthy females and 37% of healthy males as having abnormal T1 values and up to 16% of healthy females and 12% of healthy males as having abnormal T2 values. This paper highlights the potential adverse impact on diagnostic accuracy that can occur when local normal ranges contain insufficient numbers of both sexes. Sex-specific reference ranges should thus be routinely adopted in clinical practice.
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.