ArticleInvestigative radiology2025
Influence of Reader Expertise on Myocardial Infarction Detection: A Comparative Study of Dark-Blood and Bright-Blood Late Gadolinium Enhancement MRI.
Article in Investigative radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the influence of reader training and experience on the detection of (small) myocardial infarctions (MIs) and the assessment of ischemic scar transmurality using dark-blood late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and bright-blood LGE magnetic resonance imaging. It was hypothesized that dark-blood LGE simplifies the detection of (small) MIs for less experienced readers, compared with bright-blood LGE imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred patients referred for cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for suspected ischemic scar were retrospectively included. Dark-blood LGE was performed first, followed by bright-blood LGE. Nine clinicians, grouped into three levels based on their training and experience, assessed the LGE images for the presence of MI and ischemic scar transmurality. Their assessment was subsequently compared with a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging level 3 consultant. Reader confidence was evaluated with a 4-point Likert scale. Multilevel logistic regression was used to compare the 2 LGE methods and assess differences in myocardial infarction detection and transmurality among the 3 experience levels. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed to compare the reader confidence between the 2 LGE methods, whereas Friedman omnibus tests were conducted to assess differences in reader confidence among the 3 experience levels.
resultsDark-blood LGE resulted in increased correct detection of MIs compared with bright-blood LGE for both level 1 (87.3% vs 82.7%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.55 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-2.54], P = 0.083) and level 2 readers (89.7% vs 83.0%, OR: 2.05 [95% CI: 1.20-3.51], P = 0.009). There was no significant difference observed between dark-blood LGE and bright-blood LGE for level 3 readers (88.7% vs 87.0%, OR: 1.20 [95% CI: 0.70-2.06], P = 0.495). Level 2 readers significantly detected more small MIs correctly when using dark-blood LGE compared with bright-blood LGE (66.7% vs 50.8%, OR: 2.40 [95% CI: 1.03-5.60], P = 0.042). All experience levels showed significantly increased confidence in presence of ischemic scar and transmurality with dark-blood LGE.
conclusionsReadily available dark-blood LGE can assist less experienced readers in correctly detecting and assessing (small) MIs compared with conventional bright-blood LGE. Regardless of experience level, dark-blood LGE improves reader confidence in assessing the presence and transmurality of MIs.
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.