ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Pre-Imaging Clinical Factors Associated With Cardiac MR Image Quality Using Large Language Model-Enabled Data Extraction.
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 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.
- Editorial for "Pre-Imaging Clinical Factors Associated With Cardiac MR Image Quality Using Large Language Model-Enabled Data Extraction".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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor cardiac MR image quality can prompt repeat examinations and hinder clinical decision-making. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether pre-imaging clinical information, extracted using a large language model (LLM), is independently associated with cardiac MR image quality. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: 1006 adults undergoing clinical cardiac MR examinations. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T and 3 T scanners with cine, black blood, MR angiogram, or late gadolinium enhancement protocols. ASSESSMENT: Image quality was categorized per study as excellent, slightly limited, severely limited, or nondiagnostic using institutional reporting conventions finalized by radiologists and cardiologists. A HIPAA-compliant LLM assigned image quality labels based on radiology reports through an iteratively refined prompt, with reliability confirmed by two radiologists. Labels were binarized as Good (excellent and slightly limited) versus Poor (severely limited and nondiagnostic). A repeat-imaging-adjusted image quality label was used in a sensitivity analysis. Pre-imaging clinical and patient variables were extracted from electronic health records. Associations between variables and image quality labels were investigated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Cohen's kappa (κ) for label agreement. Chi-square and t-tests for univariate analysis. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and multivariable logistic regression. Significance level: p < 0.05.
resultsBinarized image quality labels showed substantial agreement with interpreters' assessments for both the primary dataset (κ = 0.689) and the repeat-adjusted dataset (κ = 0.879). There was no significant multicollinearity (VIF = 1.01-1.39). Cognitive and communication impairment (OR 1.81, 95% CI [1.30-2.54], p < 0.001) and respiratory issues (1.57 [1.14-2.17], p = 0.006) were independently associated with poor image quality. These associations remained significant in the repeat-adjusted sensitivity analysis (cognitive and communication impairment (OR 1.75, 95% CI [1.27-2.44], p < 0.001) and respiratory compromise (OR 1.37, 95% CI [1.04-1.82], p = 0.027)). Other clinical variables were not independently associated after adjustment. DATA
conclusionCognitive/communication impairment and respiratory compromise were independently associated with poor cardiac MR image quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3: 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.