MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416275866 · doi:10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101988

Quantitative myocardial blood flow and perfusion reserve with exercise cardiovascular magnetic resonance

2025· article· en· W4416275866 on OpenAlexaff
Tess Wallace, Kelvin Chow, Xiaoming Bi, Amine Amyar, Jennifer Rodriguez, Fahime Ghanbari, Martin S. Maron, Ethan J. Rowin, Warren J. Manning, Reza Nezafat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsAngiologyPerfusionBlood flowMagnetic resonance imagingCardiac magnetic resonanceIntensity (physics)Perfusion scanning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) can be quantified using vasodilator stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Exercise stress CMR (Ex-CMR) offers a more physiological assessment of cardiac functional reserve. While visual interpretation of Ex-CMR perfusion has been successfully applied, the feasibility of quantitative Ex-CMR perfusion remains unproven. We aimed to assess the feasibility of quantitative Ex-CMR perfusion imaging for characterizing exercise-induced perfusion responses and to perform a pilot study comparing MBF and MPR among patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and non-cardiac dyspnea (NCD). METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with HCM, HFpEF, or NCD underwent Ex-CMR at 3T using a supine ergometer. Exercise was performed outside the scanner bore, followed by stress perfusion imaging 45-60 s post-exercise and rest perfusion 5-7 min later. A dual-sequence protocol with inline pixel-wise quantification was used to calculate MBF and MPR. Image quality and feasibility were visually assessed. Group comparisons were performed using analysis of variance and t-tests; linear regression was used to explore clinical associations. RESULTS: Of 108 patients enrolled, 9 were excluded due to obstructive coronary artery disease or reduced ejection fraction. Quantitative Ex-CMR was successful (at least one analyzable paired rest and post-exercise slice) in 90% (10/99) of cases. Most frequent quality issues were inadequate gating or arrhythmias and slice misalignment. The final cohort included 89 patients: 34 HCM, 34 HFpEF, and 21 NCD. Patients with HCM showed significantly lower MBF and MPR than HFpEF and NCD (MBF: 1.03 ± 0.27 vs 1.25 ± 0.40 and 1.13 ± 0.25 mL/min/g; MPR: 1.27 ± 0.21 vs 1.41 ± 0.29 and 1.44 ± 0.22; all p < 0.05). Peak exercise heart rate was the strongest independent predictor of MBF (β = 0.009, p < 0.001) and MPR (β = 0.004, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Ex-CMR quantitative MBF and MPR assessment is feasible in most patients after image quality control. While the increase in MBF was limited during low-to-moderate exercise intensity in this pilot study, Ex-CMR revealed distinct perfusion response patterns among studied cohorts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207