ArticleMagnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine2026
Comparing the Perfusion and Functional Assessment Capabilities of Electrocardiography- and Photoplethysmography-monitored Phase-resolved Functional Lung and Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe present study directly compared the quantitative capabilities of regional perfusion and pulmonary functional change assessments among electrocardiography (ECG)- and photoplethysmography (PPG)-monitored phase-resolved functional lung (PREFUL) MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced (CE) perfusion MRI in thoracic oncologic patients.
methodsSeventeen thoracic oncologic patients prospectively underwent ECG- and PPG-monitored PREFUL MRI, dynamic CE-perfusion MRI, and pulmonary function tests. ECG- and PPG-monitored perfusion-weighted PREFUL MRI (PW-MRI) and quantitative perfusion maps from dynamic CE-perfusion MRI were generated. Regional perfusions were determined using ROI measurements. For each patient, the overall perfusion from each method was determined as the average ROI measurement value. To determine the relationship between regional perfusion among all methods, Pearson's correlations were performed. Tukey's honest significant difference test was performed to compare regional perfusion among ventral, middle, and dorsal slice positions on ECG- and PPG-monitored PW-MRI and quantitative perfusion maps. To assess the pulmonary functional loss evaluation capability of each MRI method, each overall perfusion was correlated with %VC and %FEV
resultsThe correlation of regional perfusion between ECG- and PPG-monitored PW-MRI was significant and good (r = 0.79, P < 0.0001). However, the correlations between ECG- or PPG-monitored PW-MRI and quantitative perfusion maps were assessed as significant and fair (ECG: r = 0.4, P < 0.0001; PPG: r = 0.36, P < 0.0001). ECG- and PPG-monitored PW-MRI demonstrated significantly higher perfusion than the quantitative perfusion map (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, ECG-and PPG-monitored PW-MRI and quantitative perfusion maps had significant and moderate correlations (%VC: 0.60 ≤ r ≤ 0.63, P < 0.05; %FEV
conclusionECG- and PPG-monitored PREFUL MRI had similar potential to dynamic CE-perfusion MRI for quantitatively assessing regional perfusion and pulmonary functional changes in thoracic oncologic patients. Furthermore, PPG-monitored PREFUL MRI showed little difference in regional perfusion evaluation compared with ECG-monitored PREFUL MRI and the potential to play a complementary role in this setting.
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.