ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Quantitative Confounder Analysis of Electrocardiogram Signals in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance at 1.5, 3 and 7 T-Assessing Standardized Electrode Positions and Sequence Types-Towards Quality Assurance.
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. 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.
- Quantitative Confounder Analysis of Electrocardiogram Signals in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance at 1.5, 3 and 7 T-Assessing Standardized Electrode Positions and Sequence Types-Towards Quality Assurance.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe electrocardiogram (ECG) used for gating in cardiac MRI may be compromised by multiple confounders inside the scanner bore. PURPOSE: To quantify the influence of magnetic field strengths (1.5 T/3 T/7 T), standardized electrode positions, and imaging sequences on ECG signals used for gating. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Sixteen healthy volunteers (eight male; mean age 26.25 ± 7.67 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Balanced steady-state free precession cine (1.5 T/3 T), fast low-angle shot cine (7 T), and 4D flow (1.5 T/3 T/7 T) sequences. ASSESSMENT: ECG-signals were recorded during breath-hold and non-breath-hold short axis cine (sax-bh and sax-nbh, respectively) and 4D flow scans at 1.5 T/3 T/7 T. All scans were repeated with 4 standardized electrode positionings (pos1-4) at each field strength. Pos1/2 were vendor-recommended positionings for 1.5 T/3 T/7 T scans, respectively, whereas pos3/4 were alternative positionings recommended in previous studies. Similarity between confounded ECG-signals and unconfounded baseline ECG-signals was assessed by QRS-feature correlation. Cine image quality (IQ) was assessed by 3 readers (with 6, 10, and 22 years experience) on a four-point Likert scale. STATISTICAL TESTS: Linear mixed models with type III tests of fixed effects (overall) and t tests with adjusted degrees of freedom (pairwise subgroup-comparisons) at significance level p < 0.05.
resultsIncreasing field strength resulted in significantly decreasing similarity to baseline measurements, with r values (provided with 95% confidence interval) of 1.5 T: 97% (92.6-101.3); 3 T: 91.4% (87.1-95.8); 7 T: 50.4% (46-54.9) and lower IQ: 1.5 T: 2.33 (2.12-2.55); 3 T: 1.96 (1.75-2.17); 7 T: 0.91 (0.7-1.12). Vendor-specified electrode positions pos1: 91.8% (87.2-96.5), pos2: 88.3% (83.7-92.9) showed significantly higher correlation with baseline measurements than alternative positions pos3: 67.5% (62.9-72.1) and pos4: 70.8% (66.2-75.4). The evaluated standardized sequences showed similar amounts of electrocardiogram distortion, with r values of: sax-bh: 77.3% (73-81.7); 4D: 79.3% (75-83.7), p = 0.54; sax-nbh: 82.1% (77.8-86.5), p = 0.31, but the difference between sax-bh and sax-nbh: 4.8% (2.88-6.72) was significant. DATA
conclusionIncreasing field strength leads to significant ECG signal distortions. Vendor-specified positions 1/2 resulted in less distorted ECG signals than alternative positions 3/4 recommended in previous publications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2: TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.
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.