ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Standardized MRI-Based Quantification of Epicardial Adipose Tissue Volume: Reproducibility and Agreement With Cardiac Computed Tomography.
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 "Standardized MRI-Based Quantification of Epicardial Adipose Tissue Volume: Reproducibility and Agreement With Cardiac Computed Tomography".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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEpicardial adipose tissue volume (EATV) is increasingly recognized as a cardiometabolic risk marker associated with adverse outcomes. The most established approach for EATV quantification is cardiac computed tomography (CT). MRI offers a radiation-free alternative allowing simultaneous assessment of myocardial function and tissue characteristics; however, standardization and validation are limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate a standardized MRI-based method for EATV quantification and determine its agreement with CT. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: 127 patients with aortic stenosis (AS) (78 ± 6 years; 38% female) who underwent paired CT and MRI and 11 volunteers (74 ± 7 years, 45% female) who underwent repeat MRI after ≥ 6 weeks. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Short-axis balanced steady-state free precession cine sequence at 3T (AS patients) and 1.5T (volunteers). ASSESSMENT: On CT, EATV was quantified by manual delineation of the visceral pericardium and voxel-thresholding (-190 to -30 HU). MRI-based EATV quantification used manual volumetry with delineation of the visceral pericardium and epicardium on end-diastolic short-axis cine stacks. STATISTICAL TESTS: Inter-modality agreement was assessed by Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. Reproducibility was evaluated in 20 patients using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CoV). Scan-rescan reproducibility for MRI-derived EATV quantification was assessed using ICC and linear regression. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsMedian EATV was significantly higher on MRI than CT (47 vs. 38 mL/m DATA
conclusionThe standardized MRI-based approach enabled highly reproducible EATV measurements with excellent repeatability. Agreement with CT was moderate, with systematically higher values on MRI, limiting direct comparability. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. STAGE OF TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 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.