ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Free-Breathing, 3D Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Elastography for Myocardial Stiffness Mapping.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. 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.
- Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Elastography: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Free-Breathing, 3D Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Elastography for Myocardial Stiffness Mapping.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMagnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of the heart has predominantly utilized breath-held acquisitions with limited anatomic coverage. This work investigates the feasibility of 3D, free-breathing cardiac MRE.
methodsA 3D hybrid radial and EPI acquisition is utilized and combined with retrospective binning of k-space via physiologic monitoring, iterative reconstruction, MRE processing and inversions, and post-processing specialized for cardiac imaging.
resultsFeasibility of free-breathing stiffness mapping of the left ventricular myocardium was demonstrated in 11 participants. Myocardial stiffness estimates were obtained throughout the left ventricle for seven temporal states of the cardiac cycle. Stiffness estimates were presented in participant-specific images, 17-segment bullseye plots, and stiffness plots throughout the cardiac cycle. Results indicate increased stiffness in systolic states, with localized stiffness heterogeneity observed between participants, illustrating a key benefit of 3D cardiac MRE acquisition. Mean stiffness estimates obtained through 11 subjects were 4.44 ± 0.68 kPa (begin-systole), 5.74 ± 0.94, 5.42 ± 0.87 (end-systole), 3.84 ± 0.71 (begin-diastole), 3.51 ± 0.74, 3.54 ± 0.52, and 3.55 ± 0.59 kPa (end-diastole). Statistical testing indicated significant differences in stiffness across cardiac states with one-way, repeated-measures ANOVA (p < 0.001) and Friedman's test (p < 0.001). Experiments in scanning three participants with and without applied motion indicated that stiffness changes were more robustly detected in systole than in diastole, although patterns were subject-specific. Comparison of free-breathing stiffness measurements against reference breath-held measurements yielded similar systolic stiffness estimates.
conclusionsThis study establishes the feasibility of free-breathing, 3D cardiac MRE in healthy volunteers. With the current framework, stiffness estimation appears more robust in systole, and the reliability of diastolic estimates is limited and subject-specific.
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.