ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Reproducibility of cardiac volumetric parameters derived from fully automatically prescribed image planes: a direct comparison to manual planning at 1.5-T and 3-T 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe prescription of cardiac MRI (CMR) image planes is essential for comparable volumetric assessment, but manual planning is time-consuming and error-prone. This prospective single-center study evaluated automated planning and its impact on the reproducibility of volumetric parameters derived from CMR. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-two healthy volunteers (26 males, median age 44.5 years) were divided into a 1.5 T sub-cohort (n = 32, both scans at 1.5 T, interval 2-5 weeks) and a 3 T sub-cohort (n = 20, 1st scan 1.5 T, 2nd scan 3 T, interval 1-2 h). All scans were performed using automated and manual planning with identical protocols, acquiring standard cardiac planes. Subjective quality of plane position was rated blinded by two radiologists. Volumetric analysis was performed fully automatically without corrections on SAX, retrieving right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) parameters. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman analysis were used for statistical assessment.
resultsSubjective quality of image planes showed high consistency with good to excellent ratings in both sub-cohorts. Reproducibility of volumetric parameters was good to excellent (all ICC > 0.77) except for LVEF (1.5 T sub-cohort: LVEF manual: 0.323; automated: 0.213; 3 T sub-cohort: LVEF manual: 0.597; automated: 0.742). Overall, reproducibility was better in the 3 T sub-cohort, mainly due to different scan intervals. ICCs were slightly higher compared to manual planning across both sub-cohorts. These trends were also observed in the Bland-Altman analysis.
conclusionFully automated plane positioning for CMR provides high-quality image planes, ensuring high reproducibility of cardiac volumetric parameters across both established field strengths. KEY POINTS: Question The prescription of CMR image planes is essential for a comparable volumetric cardiac analysis, but manual planning is time-consuming and error-prone. Findings Automated plane prescription for CMR provides high-quality image planes, ensuring high reliability and reproducibility of cardiac volumetric parameters across both established field strengths. Clinical relevance Automated plane prescription for CMR reliably provides high-quality image planes, ensuring comparable cardiac volumetric parameters. This technology can simplify the acquisition and promises to reduce variability between follow-up scans, as well as to enhance the availability for patients.
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.