ArticleOpen heart2025
Pericardial segmentation: a proposed model to quantify disease burden.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac MR (CMR) provides a comprehensive assessment of pericardial structure, tissue characteristics and constriction-related haemodynamics, making it an excellent tool for assessing the complex mechanisms that underlie constrictive pericarditis. To facilitate the reproducible quantification of pericardial disease burden, this article introduces the first standardised pericardial segmentation model validated against anatomical specimens, obtainable using standard CMR sectioning planes, and designed with equal weighting of individual pericardial segments for ease of use.
methodsThe model was created by assessing 100 morphologically normal forensic cardiac specimens with an equal gender distribution and a broad age range. Direct measurements of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) surface areas were obtained on standard cardiac short-axis forensic dissection slices. To assess variability in respective LV and RV segment sizes, data from the 100 specimens were compared with an idealised model developed to have identical respective LV and RV segment sizes.
resultsOn average, the LV and RV contributed similar areas (49.9% and 50.1%, respectively) of the total ventricular surface area. The LV pericardial area was well represented by those 11 segments of the 17-segment American Heart Association model that borders pericardium (measuring 4.51%±0.2% of the total pericardial area, per segment). The RV surface area was best represented by nine novel segments (measuring 5.54%±0.3% of the total pericardial area, per segment). A correlation between the measured and idealised models showed a mean difference of only 0.04% and 0.02% per segment for the LV and RV, respectively.
conclusionsThis pericardial segmentation model, validated against anatomical specimens and obtainable using only standard CMR views, incorporates equal-sized LV and RV pericardial segments to ensure clinical usability. By enabling quantification of disease distribution and burden across both ventricles, the model has the potential to improve clinical decision-making and enhance precision in pericardial research.
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.