The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical evaluation of aortic coarctation with 4D flow MR imaging
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: To show that 4D Flow is a clinically viable tool for evaluation of collateral blood flow and demonstration of distorted blood flow patterns in patients with treated and untreated aortic coarctation. Materials and Methods: Time‐resolved, 3D phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (4D Flow) was used to assess blood flow in the thoracic aorta of 34 individuals: 26 patients with coarctation (22 after surgery or stent placement) and eight healthy volunteers. Results: Direct comparison of blood flow calculated with 2D and 4D phase contrast data at standard levels for analysis in coarctation patients showed good correlation and agreement (correlation coefficient r = 0.99, limits of agreement = −20% to 20% for collateral blood flow calculations). Abnormal blood flow patterns were demonstrated at peak systole with 4D Flow visualization techniques in the descending thoracic aorta of patients but not volunteers. Marked helical flow was seen in 9 of 13 patients with angulated aortic arch geometries after coarctation repair. Vortical flow was seen in regions of poststenotic dilation. Conclusion: 4D Flow is a fast and reliable means of evaluating collateral blood flow in patients with aortic coarctation in order to establish hemodynamic significance. It also can detect distorted blood flow patterns in the descending aorta after coarctation repair. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;31:711–718. © 2010 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
Cited by
Markl, M., Frydrychowicz, A., Kozerke, S., Hope, M., & Wieben, O. (2012) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.23632 · Cited by 788
Self-citationGoldstein, S. A., Evangelista, A., Abbara, S., Arai, A., Asch, F. M., Badano, L. P., Bolen, M. A., Connolly, H. M., Cuéllar-Calàbria, H., Czerny, M., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.11.015 · Cited by 641
Detecting Aortic Valve-Induced Abnormal Flow with Seismocardiography and Cardiac MRI
Johnson, E. M. I., Heller, J. A., Garcia Vicente, F., Sarnari, R., Gordon, D., McCarthy, P. M., Barker, A. J., Etemadi, M., & Markl, M. (2020) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-020-02491-3 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Hope, M. D., Meadows, A. K., Hope, T. A., Ordovas, K. G., Saloner, D., Reddy, G. P., Alley, M. T., & Higgins, C. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-02-25
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 711-718
- ISSN
- 1053-1807 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-2586
- OpenAlex
- W2083344238
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.09
- 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: Clinical evaluation of aortic coarctation with 4D flow MR imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jmri.22083
- The paper
- Hope, M. D., Meadows, A. K., Hope, T. A., Ordovas, K. G., Saloner, D., Reddy, G. P., Alley, M. T., & Higgins, C. B. (2010). Clinical evaluation of aortic coarctation with 4D flow MR imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22083
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.