ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Autonomous Velocity Encoding (VENC) Selection Improves Precision of Quantitative Flow Measurement.
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. 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
backgroundThe optimal velocity encoding limit (VENC) in phase contrast MRI is subject-specific because it depends on peak flow rate and the presence of flow jets. Currently, VENC is set manually with limited prior knowledge of the peak velocity. Setting the correct VENC might improve measurement precision or shorten scan times. PURPOSE: To evaluate a workflow for autonomous selection of the optimal VENC without technologist interaction. STUDY TYPE: Prospective and retrospective. POPULATION: The retrospective cohort included 254 scans from 113 patients (47 ± 14 years, 58 female) and 18 healthy volunteers (34 ± 15 years, 10 female). The prospective cohort included 5 patients with abnormal flow (47 ± 19 years, 2 female) and 10 healthy volunteers (28 ± 7 years, 6 female). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T, 0.55 T; Cartesian gradient echo phase-contrast sequence. ASSESSMENT: A workflow has been designed to autonomously estimate and prescribe the optimal VENC. A 30s free-breathing calibration scan was followed by automatic estimation of the maximum velocity (Vmax) in < 6 s. The calculated optimal VENC was then automatically applied in the subsequent flow measurement without operator intervention. The target VENC:Vmax ratio was 1.1-1.25 according to consensus statements. STATISTICAL TESTS: Shapiro-Wilk test, nonparametric two-sided bootstrap with 90% confidence intervals, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired t-test. Holm correction was applied to prespecified pairwise comparisons. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsRetrospective analysis demonstrated sub-optimal VENC setting in 96.5% of examinations with a VENC:Vmax ratio [2.03, 2.13] (two-sided bootstrap 90% confidence interval). In the prospective cohort, autonomous inline VENC selection yielded a mean VENC:Vmax ratio of 1.19 ± 0.10, significantly lower than subject-invariant VENC settings (VENC DATA
conclusionInline autonomous VENC selection improved flow-measurement precision, simplified the acquisition workflow, and reduced scan time at 0.55 T. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: 1.
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.