ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Improve myocardial strain estimation based on deformable groupwise registration with a locally low-rank dissimilarity metric.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Left ventricular strain measured by feature-tracking cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography in chronic ischemic heart disease: an intermodality agreement study.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of myocardial strain and strain rate in cardiac computed tomography and magnetic resonance feature tracking.La Radiologia medica · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent mainstream cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking (CMR-FT) methods, including optical flow and pairwise registration, often suffer from the drift effect caused by accumulative tracking errors. Here, we developed a CMR-FT method based on deformable groupwise registration with a locally low-rank (LLR) dissimilarity metric to improve myocardial tracking and strain estimation accuracy.
methodsThe proposed method, Groupwise-LLR, performs feature tracking by iteratively updating the entire displacement field across all cardiac phases to minimize the sum of the patchwise signal ranks of the deformed movie. The method was compared with alternative CMR-FT methods including the Farneback optical flow, a sequentially pairwise registration method, and a global low rankness-based groupwise registration method via a simulated dataset (n = 20), a public cine data set (n = 100), and an in-house tagging-MRI patient dataset (n = 16). The proposed method was also compared with two general groupwise registration methods, nD + t B-Splines and pTVreg, in simulations and in vivo tracking.
resultsOn the simulated dataset, Groupwise-LLR achieved the lowest point tracking errors (p = 0.13 against pTVreg for the temporally averaged point tracking errors in the long-axis view, and p < 0.05 for all other cases), voxelwise strain errors (all p < 0.05), and global strain errors (p = 0.05 against pTVreg for the longitudinal global strain errors, and p < 0.05 for all other cases). On the public dataset, Groupwise-LLR achieved the lowest contour tracking errors (all p < 0.05), reduced the drift effect in late-diastole, and preserved similar inter-observer reproducibility as the alternative methods. On the patient dataset, Groupwise-LLR correlated better with tagging-MRI for radial strains than the other CMR-FT methods in multiple myocardial segments and levels.
conclusionsThe proposed Groupwise-LLR reduces the drift effect and provides more accurate myocardial tracking and strain estimation than the alternative methods. The method may thus facilitate a more accurate estimation of myocardial strains for clinical assessments of cardiac function.
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.