ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2021
Quantification of myocardial oxygen extraction fraction: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the potential of the isometric handgrip exercise as a test of cardiovascular reactivity to blood pressure fluctuations.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
- Left atrial function is a strong predictor of exercise intolerance in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Model-based self-supervised learning for quantitative assessment of myocardial oxygen extraction fraction and myocardial blood volume.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Quantification of myocardial oxygen extraction fraction on noncontrast MRI enabled by deep learning.Radiology advances · 2024Article
- Neurovascular coupling is optimized to compensate for the increase in proton production from nonoxidative glycolysis and glycogenolysis during brain activation and maintain homeostasis of pH, pCOJournal of neurochemistry · 2024Article
- From a Demand-Based to a Supply-Limited Framework of Brain Metabolism.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo demonstrate a proof of concept for the measurement of myocardial oxygen extraction fraction (mOEF) by a cardiovascular magnetic resonance technique.
methodsThe mOEF measurement was performed using an electrocardiogram-triggered double-echo asymmetric spin-echo sequence with EPI readout. Seven healthy volunteers (22-37 years old, 5 females) were recruited and underwent the same imaging scans at rest on 2 different days for reproducibility assessment. Another 5 subjects (23-37 years old, 4 females) underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance studies at rest and during a handgrip isometric exercise with a 25% of maximal voluntary contraction. Both mOEF and myocardial blood volume values were obtained in septal regions from respective maps.
resultsThe reproducibility was excellent for the measurements of mOEF in septal myocardium (coefficient of variation: 3.37%) and moderate for myocardial blood volume (coefficient of variation: 19.7%). The average mOEF and myocardial blood volume of 7 subjects at rest were 0.61 ± 0.05 and 11.0 ± 4.3%, respectively. The mOEF agreed well with literature values that were measured by PET in healthy volunteers. In the exercise study, there was no significant change in mOEF (0.61 ± 0.06 vs 0.62 ± 0.07) or myocardial blood volume (12 ± 6% vs 13 ± 4%) from rest to exercise, as expected.
conclusionThe implemented cardiovascular magnetic resonance method shows potential for the quantitative assessment of mOEF in vivo. Future technical work is needed to improve image quality and to further validate mOEF measurements.
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.