ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2019
Improved carotid lumen delineation on non-contrast MR angiography using SNAP (Simultaneous Non-Contrast Angiography and Intraplaque Hemorrhage) imaging.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-stage deep learning architecture for carotid artery segmentation and stenosis evaluation: comparative study with digital subtraction angiography.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSimultaneous Non-Contrast Angiography and Intraplaque Hemorrhage (SNAP) was developed for improved imaging of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH). Its signal polarity also allows for non-contrast time-of-flight MR angiography (TOF). This study sought to compare SNAP and TOF in delineating carotid lumen using contrast-enhanced MRA (CE-MRA) as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred and eighty-nine matched slices from 15 arteries among 11 subjects (9 males and 2 females, mean age of 72.1 ± 8.6 years) with luminal stenosis on CE-MRA were studied. Cross-sectional slices centered around the carotid bifurcation were matched between the three MRA techniques (SNAP, TOF, and CE-MRA) and classified as slices with or without plaque (focal wall thickness ≥ 1.5 mm) by additional black-blood vessel wall MRI. Lumen area was measured using a Sobel gradient map for TOF and CE-MRA (magnitude images) and a polarity map for SNAP. Agreement between techniques for measuring lumen area and percent stenosis was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and paired t-test.
resultsAmong the 289 matched slices, SNAP showed a higher agreement with CE-MRA than TOF for measuring lumen area (ICC: 0.93 vs. 0.83; p = 0.03). Agreement with CE-MRA was high for both SNAP and TOF in slices without plaque (ICC: 0.91 vs. 0.89; p > 0.05) but favored SNAP over TOF in slices with plaque (ICC: 0.93 vs. 0.80; p = 0.02).
conclusionSNAP, assisted by signal polarity information, demonstrated a higher agreement with CE-MRA in delineating carotid lumen compared to TOF, particularly in slices with plaque where flow conditions may be more complex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.