ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Repeatability and reproducibility of hemodynamic measurements by intracranial 4D Flow MRI: a multi‑vendor and multi‑software cross‑over comparison study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundMultiple protocols for acquiring intracranial four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance (4D Flow MR) data and post-processing software employed to obtain hemodynamic parameters are available. However, insufficient validation exists to quantify the difference in measurements. This study aims to perform a comprehensive cross-comparison analysis of quantitative results from three major vendors and three post-processing software platforms.
methodsIntracranial 4D Flow MR was conducted on 20 healthy volunteers using three different 3.0T MRI scanners. For each subject, nine major intracranial arteries (a total of 180 arteries) were analyzed using three post-processing software platforms: CVI42, MASS, and TS FLOW. Key hemodynamic parameters-including flow rate, maximum velocity (Vmax), average velocity (Vavg), and delineated vessel area-was extracted. The study compared results across different vendors and software, and further assessed both intra-observer and inter-observer consistency.
resultsRegardless of the post-processing software used, no significant differences were observed in the flow rate across different scanners (p > 0.05), with ICC = 0.700-0.919 and equivalence testing results indicate the interchangeable use of all three scanners. For flow rate and Vmax, the MASS and CVI42 software were equivalent. For Vavg, TS FLOW and CVI42 were tested equivalent. For vessel area, various agreement was shown across software (ICC = 0.083-0.577). Additionally, the TS FLOW software exhibited repeatability and reproducibility (intra-observer ICC = 0.724-0.998; inter-observer ICC = 0.590-0.981).
conclusionsScanning protocols by different vendors appear to result in smaller variations in flow rate compared to using different post-processing software methods. It is recommended to employ single post-processing software or conduct software calibration when using multiple software platforms to ensure consistency in multi-center clinical studies.
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.