↓ Skip to main content

Free-breathing myocardial T2* mapping using GRE-EPI and automatic Non-rigid motion correction

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Free-breathing myocardial T2* mapping using GRE-EPI and automatic Non-rigid motion correction
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0216-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Jin, Juliana Serafim da Silveira, Marie-Pierre Jolly, David N. Firmin, George Mathew, Nathan Lamba, Sharath Subramanian, Dudley J. Pennell, Subha V. Raman, Orlando P. Simonetti

Abstract

Measurement of myocardial T2* is becoming widely used in the assessment of patients at risk for cardiac iron overload. The conventional breath-hold, ECG-triggered, segmented, multi-echo gradient echo (MGRE) sequence used for myocardial T2* quantification is very sensitive to respiratory motion and may not be feasible in patients who are unable to breath-hold. We propose a free-breathing myocardial T2* mapping approach that combines a single-shot gradient-echo echo-planar imaging (GRE-EPI) sequence for T2*-weighted image acquisition with automatic non-rigid motion correction (MOCO) of respiratory motion between single-shot images. ECG-triggered T2*-weighted images at different echo times were acquired by a black-blood, single-shot GRE-EPI sequence during free-breathing. A single image at a single TE is acquired in each heartbeat. Automatic non-rigid MOCO was applied to correct for in-plane respiratory motion before pixel-wise T2* mapping. In a total of 117 patients referred for clinical cardiac magnetic resonance exams, the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI sequence was compared to the breath-hold segmented MGRE approach. Image quality was scored independently by 2 experienced observers blinded to the particular image acquisition strategy. T2* measurements in the interventricular septum and in the liver were compared for the two methods in all cases with adequate image quality. T2* maps were acquired in all 117 patients using the breath-hold MGRE and the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI approaches, including 8 patients with myocardial iron overload and 25 patients with hepatic iron overload. The mean image quality of the free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI images was scored significantly higher than that of the breath-hold MGRE images by both reviewers. Out of the 117 studies, 21 breath-hold MGRE studies (17.9 % of all the patients) were scored to be less than adequate or very poor by both reviewers, while only 2 free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI studies were scored to be less than adequate image quality. In a comparative evaluation of the images with at least adequate quality, the intra-class correlation coefficients for myocardial and liver T2* were 0.868 and 0.986 respectively (p < 0.001), indicating that the T2* measured by breath-hold MGRE and free-breathing MOCO GRE-EPI were in close agreement. The coefficient of variation between the breath-hold and free-breathing approaches for myocardial and liver T2* were 9.88 % and 9.38 % respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated good absolute agreement of T2* in the interventricular septum and the liver from the free-breathing and breath-hold approaches (mean differences -0.03 and 0.16 ms, respectively). The free-breathing approach described for T2* mapping using MOCO GRE-EPI enables accurate myocardial and liver T2* measurements and is insensitive to respiratory motion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Physics and Astronomy 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2016.
All research outputs
#8,675,798
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#717
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,983
of 398,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#29
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.