Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

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 access
Grotenhuis, Heynric B., Westenberg, Jos J.M., Steendijk, Paul, van der Geest, Rob J., Ottenkamp, Jaap, Bax, Jeroen J., Jukema, J. Wouter, de Roos, Albert·2009·Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jmri.21886

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 204

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.