ArticleKorean journal of radiology2025
Deep Learning-Based Breath-Hold and Free-Breathing Cine MRI for Comprehensive Cardiac Evaluation.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2025. 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.
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
objectiveTo evaluate and compare scan times, measurement accuracy, and image quality (IQ) of free-breathing (FB) and breath-hold (BH) deep learning (DL) cine MRI sequences versus standard cine MRI, with a specific focus on patients with arrhythmia and dyspnea. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy participants were prospectively enrolled, including 24 with arrhythmia, 17 with dyspnea, and 29 with normal sinus rhythm and eupnea (mean age, 49 ± 17 years). Each patient underwent three cine MRI acquisitions (standard cine, BHDL, and FBDL) on a 3T scanner. Quantitative assessments of biventricular function, left ventricular mass, and myocardial strain were independently performed by three radiologists, blinded to image acquisition techniques. IQ was evaluated by the same readers using both a five-point Likert scale and objective metrics.
resultsBoth BHDL and FBDL significantly reduced total examination times compared to standard cine (BHDL: 58 ± 5 s; FBDL: 88 ± 12 s; standard cine: 208 ± 12 s; adjusted
conclusionBoth FBDL and BHDL significantly reduced scan times compared to standard cine without compromising quantitative measurement accuracy. BHDL offered superior measurement accuracy and shorter scan time than FBDL. Furthermore, BHDL demonstrated robust suitability for patients with arrhythmia by minimizing arrhythmia-related artifacts, whereas FBDL was more effective in patients with dyspnea by mitigating respiratory motion artifacts.
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.