Towards a five-minute comprehensive cardiac MR examination using highly accelerated parallel imaging with a 32-element coil array: Feasibility and initial comparative evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and perform initial comparative evaluations of a 5-minute comprehensive whole-heart magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol with four image acquisition types: perfusion (PERF), function (CINE), coronary artery imaging (CAI), and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study protocol was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and Institutional Review Board-approved. A 5-minute comprehensive whole-heart MRI examination protocol (Accelerated) using 6-8-fold-accelerated volumetric parallel imaging was incorporated into and compared with a standard 2D clinical routine protocol (Standard). Following informed consent, 20 patients were imaged with both protocols. Datasets were reviewed for image quality using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = non-diagnostic, 4 = excellent) in blinded fashion by two readers. RESULTS: Good image quality with full whole-heart coverage was achieved using the accelerated protocol, particularly for CAI, although significant degradations in quality, as compared with traditional lengthy examinations, were observed for the other image types. Mean total scan time was significantly lower for the Accelerated as compared to Standard protocols (28.99 ± 4.59 min vs. 1.82 ± 0.05 min, P < 0.05). Overall image quality for the Standard vs. Accelerated protocol was 3.67 ± 0.29 vs. 1.5 ± 0.51 (P < 0.005) for PERF, 3.48 ± 0.64 vs. 2.6 ± 0.68 (P < 0.005) for CINE, 2.35 ± 1.01 vs. 2.48 ± 0.68 (P = 0.75) for CAI, and 3.67 ± 0.42 vs. 2.67 ± 0.84 (P < 0.005) for LGE. Diagnostic image quality for Standard vs. Accelerated protocols was 20/20 (100%) vs. 10/20 (50%) for PERF, 20/20 (100%) vs. 18/20 (90%) for CINE, 18/20 (90%) vs. 18/20 (90%) for CAI, and 20/20 (100%) vs. 18/20 (90%) for LGE. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the technical feasibility and promising image quality of 5-minute comprehensive whole-heart cardiac examinations, with simplified scan prescription and high spatial and temporal resolution enabled by highly parallel imaging technology. The study also highlights technical hurdles that remain to be addressed. Although image quality remained diagnostic for most scan types, the reduced image quality of PERF, CINE, and LGE scans in the Accelerated protocol remain a concern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".