Consensus‐Based Technical Recommendations for Clinical Translation of Renal Phase Contrast <scp>MRI</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phase-contrast (PC) MRI is a feasible and valid noninvasive technique to measure renal artery blood flow, showing potential to support diagnosis and monitoring of renal diseases. However, the variability in measured renal blood flow values across studies is large, most likely due to differences in PC-MRI acquisition and processing. Standardized acquisition and processing protocols are therefore needed to minimize this variability and maximize the potential of renal PC-MRI as a clinically useful tool. PURPOSE: To build technical recommendations for the acquisition, processing, and analysis of renal 2D PC-MRI data in human subjects to promote standardization of renal blood flow measurements and facilitate the comparability of results across scanners and in multicenter clinical studies. STUDY TYPE: Systematic consensus process using a modified Delphi method. POPULATION: Not applicable. SEQUENCE FIELD/STRENGTH: Renal fast gradient echo-based 2D PC-MRI. ASSESSMENT: An international panel of 27 experts from Europe, the USA, Australia, and Japan with 6 (interquartile range 4-10) years of experience in 2D PC-MRI formulated consensus statements on renal 2D PC-MRI in two rounds of surveys. Starting from a recently published systematic review article, literature-based and data-driven statements regarding patient preparation, hardware, acquisition protocol, analysis steps, and data reporting were formulated. STATISTICAL TESTS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% unanimity in response, and a clear preference was defined as 60-74% agreement among the experts. RESULTS: Among 60 statements, 57 (95%) achieved consensus after the second-round survey, while the remaining three showed a clear preference. Consensus statements resulted in specific recommendations for subject preparation, 2D renal PC-MRI data acquisition, processing, and reporting. DATA CONCLUSION: These recommendations might promote a widespread adoption of renal PC-MRI, and may help foster the set-up of multicenter studies aimed at defining reference values and building larger and more definitive evidence, and will facilitate clinical translation of PC-MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".