ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Establishing reference values for the pediatric abdominal aorta in MRI.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesReference values for the diameter of the thoracic aorta exist for children across all diagnostic imaging procedures, but not for the abdominal aorta. To our knowledge, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based reference values for the pediatric abdominal aorta have not yet been published. The aim of this study was to determine reference values for the aortic diameter in a pediatric population using MRI. MATERIALS AND
methods150 children (mean age, 9.1 ± 5.6 years) without history or clinical signs of cardiovascular disease underwent MRI, including a three-dimensional stack of stars gradient-recalled-echo sequence with fat-saturation after intravenous contrast administration. Aortic diameters at four levels (diaphragm, celiac trunk, renal arteries, superior to the aortic bifurcation) were measured by two radiologists. Interrater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Least squares regression models were used to relate aortic diameter to body surface area (BSA). Three model sets were evaluated with the Akaike information criterion to identify the best fit. After determining the optimal model, the influence of sex on diameter measurements was examined. Predicted diameter formulas were derived from the slope estimates, and mean squared error estimates were used to calculate z-scores.
resultsInterrater reliability between the aortic diameter measurements was excellent (ICC, 0.98-0.99). The polynomial regression of the natural logarithm was identified being the best model for all aortic measurements.
conclusionReference diameters for the abdominal aorta in children were determined considering BSA and sex. Data from a healthy population provides a valuable reference for clinical evaluation. KEY POINTS: QuestionMRI-based reference values for the pediatric abdominal aorta have not yet been published. FindingsInterrater reliability between the aortic diameter measurements was excellent, and natural logarithmic polynomial regression optimally models the aortic diameter to body surface area. Clinical relevanceEstablishing reference values for the pediatric abdominal aorta is essential for diagnosing and monitoring cardiovascular disease. This study provides normative graphs and tables to assess aortic diameters in relation to body surface area in clinical routine.
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.