The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validation and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity as assessed with velocity‐encoded MRI
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To validate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV MRI) with PWV determined from invasive intra‐aortic pressure measurements (PWV INV) and to test the reproducibility of the measurement by MRI. Materials and Methods: PWV MRI was compared with PWV INV in 18 nonconsecutive patients scheduled for catheterization for suspected coronary artery disease. Reproducibility of PWV MRI was tested in 10 healthy volunteers who underwent repeated measurement of PWV MRI at a single occasion. Velocity‐encoded MRI was performed on all participants to assess PWV MRI in the total aorta (Ao total), the proximal aorta (Ao prox), and the distal aorta (Ao dist). Results: The results are expressed as mean ± SD, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), and intraclass correlation (ICC). Good agreement between PWV MRI and PWV INV was found for Ao total (6.5 ± 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 ± 0.8 m/s; PCC = 0.53), Ao prox (6.5 ± 1.3 m/s vs. 6.2 ± 1.1 m/s; PCC = 0.69), and for Ao dist (6.9 ± 1.1 m/s vs. 6.1 ± 1.0 m/s; PCC = 0.71). Reproducibility of PWV MRI was high for Ao total (4.3 ± 0.5 m/s vs. 4.6 ± 0.7 m/s; ICC = 0.90, P < 0.01), Ao prox (4.3 ± 0.9 m/s vs. 4.7 ± 1.0 m/s; ICC = 0.87, P < 0.01), and Ao dist (4.3 ± 0.6 m/s vs. 4.4 ± 0.8 m/s; ICC = 0.92, P < 0.01). Conclusion: MRI assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity shows good agreement with invasive pressure measurements and can be determined with high reproducibility. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2009;30:521–526. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Expert consensus document on arterial stiffness: methodological issues and clinical applications
Laurent, S., Cockcroft, J., Van Bortel, L., Boutouyrie, P., Giannattasio, C., Hayoz, D., Pannier, B., Vlachopoulos, C., Wilkinson, I., Struijker-Boudier, H., et al. (2006) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl254 · Cited by 6,077
Impact of Aortic Stiffness on Survival in End-Stage Renal Disease
Blacher, J., Guerin, A. P., Pannier, B., Marchais, S. J., Safar, M. E., & London, G. M. (1999) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.99.18.2434 · Cited by 2,138
Cited by
Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells and Arterial Stiffening: Relevance in Development, Aging, and Disease
Lacolley, P., Regnault, V., Segers, P., & Laurent, S. (2017) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00003.2017 · Cited by 734
Devos, D. G. H., De Groote, K., Babin, D., Demulier, L., Taeymans, Y., Westenberg, J. J., Van Bortel, L., Segers, P., Achten, E., De Schepper, J., et al. (2016) · Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · doi:10.1186/s12968-017-0331-0 · Cited by 29
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Grotenhuis, H. B., Westenberg, J. J. M., Steendijk, P., van der Geest, R. J., Ottenkamp, J., Bax, J. J., Jukema, J. W., & de Roos, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-08-26
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 521-526
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2112201431
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validation and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity as assessed with velocity‐encoded MRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.21886
- The paper
- Grotenhuis, H. B., Westenberg, J. J. M., Steendijk, P., van der Geest, R. J., Ottenkamp, J., Bax, J. J., Jukema, J. W., & de Roos, A. (2009). Validation and reproducibility of aortic pulse wave velocity as assessed with velocity‐encoded MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21886
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.