ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Monitoring carotid arterial stiffness using non-contrast-enhanced 4D MR angiography.
Article in European radiology experimental, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe anatomy of carotid arteries is evaluated with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), while its stiffness-related parameters are evaluated using ultrasound. An isotropic three-dimensional (3D) MRA technique enabling the measurement of diameter changes could provide a dynamic assessment of the entire carotid tree, extending the existing clinical carotid MR toolset. The goal of this feasibility study was to comprehensively characterize stiffness-related parameters with dynamic 3D MRA and evaluate its repeatability compared to ultrasound. MATERIALS AND
methodsA non-contrast-enhanced free-running 3D radial MRA sequence was used in 18 healthy volunteers (9 males, 9 females, aged 49 ± 20 years, mean ± standard deviation), scanned twice with both MRA and ultrasound. Diameter changes throughout the cardiac cycle were measured in MRA and ultrasound images to compute stiffness-related parameters: systolic-diastolic relative diameter change (RDC), stiffness index, arterial compliance (AC), local pulse wave velocity and pressure-strain Young's elastic modulus (E), computed for the left (LC) and right (RC) common carotid arteries. Repeatability was evaluated for systolic and diastolic diameter measurements using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sub-analyses were performed on a junior and senior subgroup of the volunteers.
resultsWhen evaluating MRA versus ultrasound differences, a relative MRA overestimation of the RDC in the senior cohort (p < 0.001) led to higher AC (p = 0.010) and E (p = 0.042). All stiffness-related parameters were significantly different between the age cohorts. MRA showed high repeatability for the LC (ICC = 0.95) and RC (ICC = 0.93) compared to ultrasound (ICC = 0.78, ICC = 0.51, respectively).
conclusionCarotid stiffness can be repeatably quantified with non-contrast-enhanced 4D MRA, providing information traditionally obtained with ultrasound. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Dynamic free-running non-contrast-enhanced MRA allows the noninvasive quantification of carotid dynamic properties and anatomy, demonstrating its potential for the assessment of 3D vascular age, showing superior repeatability compared to the clinical standard ultrasound. KEY POINTS: Carotid stiffness is assessed with ultrasound and anatomy with MR imaging; combining both assessments in an examination would be valuable. Carotid stiffness can be repeatably quantified with free-running non-contrast-enhanced MRA and yields metrics comparable to ultrasound in healthy volunteers. Dynamic 3D MRA may enable the measurement of stiffness parameters throughout the carotid tree.
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.