Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Cardiac T1 and T2 mapping techniques are well-established methods for obtaining quantitative pixelwise representations of myocardial tissue properties. Mapping images are commonly evaluated quantitatively, and their resulting values play a crucial role in diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making in various cardiac pathologies. Despite the validated effectiveness of these techniques, both methodological and patient-specific confounders must be considered when applying them in clinical and research settings. Artifacts-erroneous features within the magnetic resonance image-can be misinterpreted as true anatomical structures or pathologies, potentially confounding quantitative analyses, conducted by both human readers and artificial intelligence algorithms. Artifacts can arise from sources such as patient motion, metal objects, hardware constraints, patient-specific scanner adjustments (e.g., flip-angle calibration), and processing errors, particularly within the complex environment of cardiac imaging. While artifact sources in other cardiovascular magnetic resonance sequences are well-documented, cardiac parametric mapping presents unique challenges due to its distinct image generation and quantitative assessment. This article provides an overview of artifacts encountered in cardiac T1 and T2 mapping, along with a concise explanation of their origins, aiming to raise awareness of their potential impact on clinical decision-making. Future developments, including sequences designed to mitigate mapping artifacts, are also briefly discussed. A strong interaction between scientists and clinicians is needed to overcome these challenges and maintain the reliability of quantification results.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101934

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2025-12-01T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

27

Addresses

C, h, a, r, i, t, é, , -, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, ä, t, s, m, e, d, i, z, i, n, , B, e, r, l, i, n, ,, , c, o, r, p, o, r, a, t, e, , m, e, m, b, e, r, , o, f, , F, r, e, i, e, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, ä, t, , B, e, r, l, i, n, , a, n, d, , H, u, m, b, o, l, d, t, -, U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, ä, t, , z, u, , B, e, r, l, i, n, ,, , E, x, p, e, r, i, m, e, n, t, a, l, , a, n, d, , C, l, i, n, i, c, a, l, , R, e, s, e, a, r, c, h, , C, e, n, t, e, r, ,, , B, e, r, l, i, n, ,, , G, e, r, m, a, n, y, ;, , D, i, v, i, s, i, o, n, , o, f, , C, a, r, d, i, o, v, a, s, c, u, l, a, r, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, ,, , R, a, d, c, l, i, f, f, e, , D, e, p, a, r, t, m, e, n, t, , o, f, , M, e, d, i, c, i, n, e, ,, , U, n, i, v, e, r, s, i, t, y, , o, f, , O, x, f, o, r, d, ,, , O, x, f, o, r, d, ,, , U, n, i, t, e, d, , K, i, n, g, d, o, m, .

Keywords

Humans, Heart Diseases, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Observer Variation, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Artifacts, Reproducibility of Results, Predictive Value of Tests