Impact of Field Strength in Clinical Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging
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
ABSTRACT: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely applied for the noninvasive assessment of cardiac structure and function, and for tissue characterization. For more than 2 decades, 1.5 T has been considered the field strength of choice for cardiac MRI. Although the number of 3-T systems significantly increased in the past 10 years and numerous new developments were made, challenges seem to remain that hamper a widespread clinical use of 3-T MR systems for cardiac applications. As the number of clinical cardiac applications is increasing, with each having their own benefits at both field strengths, no "holy grail" field strength exists for cardiac MRI that one should ideally use. This review describes the physical differences between 1.5 and 3 T, as well as the effect of these differences on major (routine) cardiac MRI applications, including functional imaging, edema imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, first-pass stress perfusion, myocardial mapping, and phase contrast flow imaging. For each application, the advantages and limitations at both 1.5 and 3 T are discussed. Solutions and alternatives are provided to overcome potential limitations. Finally, we briefly elaborate on the potential use of alternative field strengths (ie, below 1.5 T and above 3 T) for cardiac MRI and conclude with field strength recommendations for the future of cardiac MRI.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it