ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Quantification of Replacement Fibrosis in Aortic Stenosis: A Narrative Review on the Utility of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Mechanobiological feedback loops and quantitative decision thresholds in organ fibrosis: Translational principles for antifibrotic therapy.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2026Review
- Analysis of the Accuracy and Inter-Reader Precision of Scar Quantification Techniques in Aortic Stenosis: A Comparative Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Utility of Serum Biomarkers of Myocardial Fibrosis in High-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Explorative Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with the development of replacement myocardial fibrosis/scar. Given the dose-dependent relationship between scar and clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery, scar quantity may serve as an important risk-stratification tool to aid decision-making on the optimal timing of AVR. Scar is non-invasively assessed and quantified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Several quantification techniques exist, and consensus on the optimal technique is lacking. These techniques range from a visual manual method to fully automated ones. This review describes the different scar quantification techniques used and highlights their strengths and shortfalls within the context of AS. The two most commonly used techniques in AS include the semi-automated signal threshold versus reference mean (STRM) and full-width half-maximum (FWHM) techniques. The accuracy and reproducibility of these techniques may be hindered in AS by the coexistence of diffuse interstitial fibrosis and the presence of relatively small, non-bright scars. The validation of these techniques against histology, which is the current gold standard for scar quantification in AS, is limited. Based on the best current evidence, the STRM method using a threshold of three standard deviations above the mean signal intensity of remote myocardium is recommended. The high reproducibility of the FWHM technique in non-AS cohorts has been shown and merits further evaluation within the context of AS. Future directions include the use of quantitative T1 mapping for the detection and quantification of scar, as well as the development of serum biomarkers that reflect the fibrotic status of the myocardium in AS.
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.