ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Evaluation of Third-Order Motion-Compensated Cardiac Diffusion Tensor Imaging Across Cardiac Phases Using an Ultra-High-Performance Clinical Scanner.
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate a third-order motion-compensated spin echo (M3-MCSE) sequence at multiple cardiac phases on a clinical 3 T MRI scanner with ultra-high performance (UHP) gradients (200 mT/m), compared with stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) and second-order MCSE (M2-MCSE) for cardiac diffusion tensor imaging (cDTI).
methodsTwenty healthy subjects underwent mid-ventricular short-axis cDTI at peak systole and diastasis using STEAM, M2-MCSE, and M3-MCSE. cDTI metrics and image quality were compared. In five additional healthy subjects, diffusion-weighted images were obtained at multiple trigger delays distributed over diastasis to assess motion-induced signal loss.
resultsCompared to M2-MCSE, M3-MCSE yielded higher systolic helix angle map scores (
conclusionUHP gradients enabled in vivo evaluation of M3-MCSE, showing superior systolic cDTI but reduced diastolic performance versus M2-MCSE due to reduced signal-to-noise ratio and a longer motion-sensitive window. Future work may consider numerically optimized gradient designs to enhance MCSE robustness throughout the cardiac cycle.
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.