ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2024
Inline automatic quality control of 2D phase-contrast flow MRI for subject-specific scan time adaptation.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 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.
- Real-time quality control in optoacoustic mesoscopy for enhancing data quality and standardization in clinical studies.Photoacoustics · 2026Article
- Online Spatiotemporally Constrained Reconstruction for Real-Time Interactive MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Golden Angle Spiral Real-Time Phase Contrast MRI at 0.55T: A Single-Center Prospective Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop an inline automatic quality control to achieve consistent diagnostic image quality with subject-specific scan time, and to demonstrate this method for 2D phase-contrast flow MRI to reach a predetermined SNR.
methodsWe designed a closed-loop feedback framework between image reconstruction and data acquisition to intermittently check SNR (every 20 s) and automatically stop the acquisition when a target SNR is achieved. A free-breathing 2D pseudo-golden-angle spiral phase-contrast sequence was modified to listen for image-quality messages from the reconstructions. Ten healthy volunteers and 1 patient were imaged at 0.55 T. Target SNR was selected based on retrospective analysis of cardiac output error, and performance of the automatic SNR-driven "stop" was assessed inline.
resultsSNR calculation and automated segmentation was feasible within 20 s with inline deployment. The SNR-driven acquisition time was 2 min 39 s ± 67 s (aorta) and 3 min ± 80 s (main pulmonary artery) with a min/max acquisition time of 1 min 43 s/4 min 52 s (aorta) and 1 min 43 s/5 min 50 s (main pulmonary artery) across 6 healthy volunteers, while ensuring a diagnostic measurement with relative absolute error in quantitative flow measurement lower than 2.1% (aorta) and 6.3% (main pulmonary artery).
conclusionThe inline quality control enables subject-specific optimized scan times while ensuring consistent diagnostic image quality. The distribution of automated stopping times across the population revealed the value of a subject-specific scan time.
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.