ArticleNMR in biomedicine2026
Multifrequency Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Abdominal Aortic Wall: Segmental, Positional and Flow Effects.
Article in NMR in biomedicine, 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
Current aortic magnetic-resonance-elastography (MRE) infers wall stiffness indirectly from waveguide effects. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of abdominal aortic MRE for direct assessment of wall stiffness and its dependence on segmental region, patient position, and hemodynamic parameters. This prospective study examined 11 healthy young male volunteers using MRE to evaluate two anatomical segments of the abdominal aorta: the supraceliac (SC) and infrarenal (IR) segments. The volunteers underwent examinations in both the supine and prone positions. An ECG trigger delay was implemented for MRE to minimize the blood signal in the lumen. Three-dimensional wavefields were acquired at three mechanical frequencies (70, 80, and 90 Hz), and shear wave speed (SWS) maps were reconstructed as a stiffness surrogate. In addition, blood flow-velocity MRI was performed assess hemodynamic parameters. Test-retest examinations were performed in a subgroup to evaluate repeatability of aortic MRE. Aortic wall MRE was successful in all participants with good repeatability (ICC = 0.76). Mean wall SWS was higher in SC than IR segments at supine (1.47 ± 0.07 vs. 1.39 ± 0.13 m/s, p = 0.035) and prone positions (1.40 ± 0.09 vs. 1.33 ± 0.10 m/s, p = 0.046) with higher values in supine SC segments (p = 0.019). Flow measurements revealed higher peak velocity and peak flow in SC than IR segments (all p < 0.001) with significant effects of examination position on peak velocity and cross-sectional area in SC (all p < 0.05). In prone position, peak velocity correlated negatively with aorta stiffness (SC: r = -0.75, p = 0.008; IR: r = -0.69, p = 0.019). This study demonstrated abdominal aortic MRE for directly depicting wall stiffness with minimal blood contribution. Segment-specific aortic wall stiffness was sensitive to circulatory loading and vascular distensibility. In a clinical context, high-resolution multifrequency MRE could serve as an imaging marker for vascular health and abdominal aortic risk stratification.
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.