ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2024
Comparing Strain Assessment in Compressed Sensing and Conventional Cine MRI.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of compressed sensing (CS) acceleration methods compared to conventional segmented cine (Seg) cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for evaluating left ventricular (LV) function and strain by feature tracking (FT). In this prospective study, 45 healthy volunteers underwent CMR imaging used Seg, threefold (CS3), fourfold (CS4), and eightfold (CS8) CS acceleration. Cine images were scored for quality (1-5 scale). LV volumetric and functional parameters and global longitudinal (GLS), circumferential (GCS), and radial strains (GRS) were quantified. LV volumetric and functional parameters exhibited no differences between Seg and all CS cines (all P > 0.05). The strains were similar for Seg, CS3, and CS4 (all P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in GRS and GCS between Seg and CS8 (all P > 0.05), but the global longitudinal strain was significantly lower for CS8 versus Seg (P < 0.001). Image quality declined with CS acceleration, especially in long-axis views with CS8. CS cine MRI at acceleration factor 4 maintained good image quality and accurate measurements of LV function and strain, although there was a slight reduction in the quality of long-axis images and GLS with CS8. CS acceleration up to a factor of 4 enabled fast CMR evaluations, making it suitable for clinical use.
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.