Trial reportJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2025
Automatic motion correction for myocardial blood flow estimation improves diagnostic performance for coronary artery disease in
Trial report in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2025. 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.
- The Effect of Motion Correction on Quantitative Perfusion Indices and Threshold-Based Interpretation inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dynamic frame-by-frame motion correction forEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMotion correction (MC) is critical for accurate quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) from
methodsIn total, 231 patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography and rest/pharmacologic stress
resultsManual MC took 10 minutes per case (both stress and rest) on average, while automatic MC required <10 seconds. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) for significant CAD using minimal segmental MBF were comparable between automatic and manual MC (AUC = 0.877 automatic, AUC = 0.888 Reader 1 and AUC = 0.892 Reader 2; all P > 0.05). AUCs of minimal segmental MBF with manual and automatic MC were significantly higher than without MC (P < 0.05 for both). Similar findings were observed with minimal segmental MFR.
conclusionsAutomatic MC can be performed rapidly, with diagnostic performance for predicting obstructive CAD comparable to manual MC. This method could be utilized for analysis of MBF/MFR in patients undergoing
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.