ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning-based interpretation of non-contrast feature tracking strain analysis and T1/T2 mapping for assessing myocardial viability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- AI Applied to Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Precision Medicine in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Time series analysis of ex-vivo ischemia-reperfused heart using Q-space imaging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Imaging Modalities in Estimating Myocardial Viability: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing myocardial viability is crucial for managing ischemic heart disease. While late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard for viability evaluation, it has limitations, including contraindications in patients with renal dysfunction and lengthy scan times. This study investigates the potential of non-contrast CMR techniques-feature tracking strain analysis and T1/T2 mapping-combined with machine learning (ML) models, as an alternative to LGE-CMR for myocardial viability assessment. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 79 patients with myocardial infarction (MI) 2-4 weeks post-event. Patients with prior ischemia or poor imaging quality were excluded to ensure robust data acquisition. Various ML algorithms were applied to data from LGE-CMR and non-contrast CMR techniques. Random forest (RF) demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.89, 0.90, and 0.92 for left anterior descending (LAD), right coronary artery (RCA), and left circumflex (LCX) coronary artery territories, respectively. For the LAD territory, RF, k-nearest neighbors (KNN), and logistic regression were the top performers, while RCA showed the best results from RF, neural networks (NN), and KNN. In the LCX territory, RF, NN, and logistic regression were most effective. The integration of T1/T2 mapping and strain analysis significantly enhanced myocardial viability prediction, positioning these non-contrast techniques as promising alternatives to LGE-CMR. ML models, particularly RF, provided superior diagnostic accuracy across coronary territories. Future studies should validate these findings across diverse populations and clinical settings.
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.