ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Fully Automated Plane Prescription in Cardiac MRI: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fully automated free-breathing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 3T: A prospective randomized study of image quality, efficiency, and workflow burden.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026Article
- Harmonization in magnetic resonance imaging: A survey of acquisition, image-level, and feature-level methods.Medical image analysis · 2026Review
- Fully Automated Plane Prescription in Cardiac MRI: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate plane positioning is important for high-quality cardiac MRI images but requires specialized training, limiting accessibility. PURPOSE: To evaluate an automated plane positioning tool and compare it with manual planning. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Fifty-seven healthy volunteers (28 males; median age 42 years) and 20 consecutive patients (15 males; median age 61 years) scheduled for clinical cardiac MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Steady state free precession cine sequence at 1.5 T. ASSESSMENT: In volunteers, short-axis (SAX), 2-chamber (2CH), 3-chamber (3CH), and 4-chamber (4CH) cine images were acquired using both automated and manual prescription. Two blinded radiologists (5 and 6 years of clinical cardiac MRI experience) rated plane quality on a Likert scale (1 = nondiagnostic to 5 = excellent). Mean plane angle differences between manual and automated prescriptions were calculated. Left and right ventricular end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) were compared. In patients, the number of required manual corrections to automated prescriptions was recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank tests and Bland-Altman analyses, significance level at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsAutomated plane positioning was successful in all volunteers. Image plane quality did not differ significantly between automated (mean score 4.64) and manual prescription (4.62, p = 0.812). Mean angle differences were 6.7° ± 4.3° (SAX), 10.3° ± 5.8° (2CH), 8.9° ± 5.1° (3CH), and 8.0° ± 4.8° (4CH). Volumetric parameters showed no significant differences between both planning methods with mean biases being -0.5 mL, p = 0.305 (LVEDV), 0.5 mL, p = 0.683 (LVESV), -1.0 mL, p = 0.168 (LVSV) and 0.4%, and p = 0.215 (LVEF). In patients, 8.8% (7/80) of automatically prescribed planes required minor corrections; 91.2% (73/80) were accepted without adjustments. DATA
conclusionAutomated plane positioning for cardiac MRI may provide high-quality images and accurate volumetric assessment comparable to manual planning. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.