ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2024
High-resolution quantification of stress perfusion defects by cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Arterial Input Function for the Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Blood Flow and Perfusion Reserve in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: A Validation Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Deep learning motion correction of quantitative stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is becoming more widely available, but it is still unclear how to integrate this information into clinical decision-making. Typically, pixel-wise perfusion maps are generated, but diagnostic and prognostic studies have summarized perfusion as just one value per patient or in 16 myocardial segments. In this study, the reporting of quantitative perfusion maps is extended from the standard 16 segments to a high-resolution bullseye. Cut-off thresholds are established for the high-resolution bullseye, and the identified perfusion defects are compared with visual assessment. Methods and results: Thirty-four patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease were retrospectively analysed. Visual perfusion defects were contoured on the CMR images and pixel-wise quantitative perfusion maps were generated. Cut-off values were established on the high-resolution bullseye consisting of 1800 points and compared with the per-segment, per-coronary, and per-patient resolution thresholds. Quantitative stress perfusion was significantly lower in visually abnormal pixels, 1.11 (0.75-1.57) vs. 2.35 (1.82-2.9) mL/min/g (Mann-Whitney Conclusion: This study introduces a high-resolution bullseye consisting of 1800 points, rather than 16, per patient for reporting quantitative stress perfusion, which may improve sensitivity. Using this representation, the threshold required to identify areas of reduced perfusion is lower than for segmental analysis.
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.