Real‐time MRI guidance of cardiac interventions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is appealing to guide complex cardiac procedures because it is ionizing radiation-free and offers flexible soft-tissue contrast. Interventional cardiac MR promises to improve existing procedures and enable new ones for complex arrhythmias, as well as congenital and structural heart disease. Guiding invasive procedures demands faster image acquisition, reconstruction and analysis, as well as intuitive intraprocedural display of imaging data. Standard cardiac MR techniques such as 3D anatomical imaging, cardiac function and flow, parameter mapping, and late-gadolinium enhancement can be used to gather valuable clinical data at various procedural stages. Rapid intraprocedural image analysis can extract and highlight critical information about interventional targets and outcomes. In some cases, real-time interactive imaging is used to provide a continuous stream of images displayed to interventionalists for dynamic device navigation. Alternatively, devices are navigated relative to a roadmap of major cardiac structures generated through fast segmentation and registration. Interventional devices can be visualized and tracked throughout a procedure with specialized imaging methods. In a clinical setting, advanced imaging must be integrated with other clinical tools and patient data. In order to perform these complex procedures, interventional cardiac MR relies on customized equipment, such as interactive imaging environments, in-room image display, audio communication, hemodynamic monitoring and recording systems, and electroanatomical mapping and ablation systems. Operating in this sophisticated environment requires coordination and planning. This review provides an overview of the imaging technology used in MRI-guided cardiac interventions. Specifically, this review outlines clinical targets, standard image acquisition and analysis tools, and the integration of these tools into clinical workflow. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:935-950.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it