ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Quantitative Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenosis by Multi-VENC 4D Flow MRI: Incorporating Turbulent Kinetic Energy for Clinical Validity.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 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.
- Consensus machine learning identifies cell death gene signature for carotid artery stenosis diagnosis.iScience · 2026Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenosis by Multi-VENC 4D Flow MRI: Incorporating Turbulent Kinetic Energy for Clinical Validity.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS) is a recognized risk factor for ischemic stroke, yet morphological severity alone may not fully reflect hemodynamic alterations. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), derived from multi-velocity-encoding (multi-VENC) four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI, may provide a robust marker for ICS assessment, though its utility in carotid arteries remains underexplored. PURPOSE: To investigate the reproducibility of TKE measurement and to assess correlations with MR angiography (MRA)-derived stenosis, black blood T1-weighted imaging (T1BB)-derived plaque scale, and ultrasound parameters. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Twenty-three patients (6 [26%] female; median age: 72 years, IQR: 60-80) with suspected ICS based on cerebrovascular symptoms or screening carotid ultrasound. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, multi-VENC (33-100-300 cm/s) 4D flow MRI of the carotid arteries at 1.0 mm ASSESSMENT: Two neuroradiologists measured TKE once per case for interobserver evaluation. TKE was measured in a volume from just proximal to the bifurcation and slightly distal to the ICA stenosis. TKEbeat was defined as the total TKE integrated over the cardiac cycle. Stenosis and plaque features were assessed by MRA and T1BB, respectively. Carotid ultrasound parameters included peak systolic velocity, resistance index, intima-media thickness (IMT), and plaque characteristics. STATISTICAL TESTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses were used for interobserver agreements. Associations between TKEbeat and conventional parameters were evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation. TKEbeat was compared between subgroups based on stenosis, plaque grade, and vascular risk factors using Mann-Whitney U-tests. Significance threshold: p < 0.05.
resultsThe ICC was 0.922 for TKEbeat. TKE correlated with stenosis (r = 0.309), plaque scale (r = 0.392), and IMT (r = 0.543). TKEbeat was higher in the stenosis group. DATA
conclusionMulti-VENC 4D flow MRI enables reproducible TKE measurement correlated with carotid stenosis and plaque features. EVIDENCE LEVEL: Level 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.