Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials

Open access
Ibanez, Borja, Aletras, Anthony H., Arai, Andrew E., Arheden, Hakan, Bax, Jeroen, Berry, Colin, Bucciarelli-Ducci, Chiara, Croisille, Pierre, Dall'Armellina, Erica, Dharmakumar, Rohan, Eitel, Ingo, Fernández-Jiménez, Rodrigo, Friedrich, Matthias G., García-Dorado, David, Hausenloy, Derek J., Kim, Raymond J., Kozerke, Sebastian, Kramer, Christopher M., Salerno, Michael, Sánchez-González, Javier, Sanz, Javier, Fuster, Valentin·2019·Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

After a reperfused myocardial infarction (MI), dynamic tissue changes occur (edema, inflammation, microvascular obstruction, hemorrhage, cardiomyocyte necrosis, and ultimately replacement by fibrosis). The extension and magnitude of these changes contribute to long-term prognosis after MI. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold-standard technique for noninvasive myocardial tissue characterization. CMR is also the preferred methodology for the identification of potential benefits associated with new cardioprotective strategies both in experimental and clinical trials. However, there is a wide heterogeneity in CMR methodologies used in experimental and clinical trials, including time of post-MI scan, acquisition protocols, and, more importantly, selection of endpoints. There is a need for standardization of these methodologies to improve the translation into a real clinical benefit. The main objective of this scientific expert panel consensus document is to provide recommendations for CMR endpoint selection in experimental and clinical trials based on pathophysiology and its association with hard outcomes.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.024

Cites

73 of 73 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 73 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Ibanez, B., Aletras, A. H., Arai, A. E., Arheden, H., Bax, J., Berry, C., Bucciarelli-Ducci, C., Croisille, P., Dall'Armellina, E., Dharmakumar, R., Eitel, I., Fernández-Jiménez, R., Friedrich, M. G., García-Dorado, D., Hausenloy, D. J., Kim, R. J., Kozerke, S., Kramer, C. M., Salerno, M., Sánchez-González, J., Sanz, J., & Fuster, V.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
74
Issue
2
Pages
238-256
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.024
OpenAlex
W2961167129
Cited by
369
References
73
FWCI
25.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.024
The paper
Ibanez, B., Aletras, A. H., Arai, A. E., Arheden, H., Bax, J., Berry, C., Bucciarelli-Ducci, C., Croisille, P., Dall'Armellina, E., Dharmakumar, R., Eitel, I., Fernández-Jiménez, R., Friedrich, M. G., García-Dorado, D., Hausenloy, D. J., Kim, R. J., Kozerke, S., Kramer, C. M., Salerno, M., . . . Fuster, V. (2019). Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.024

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.