Key result
Richardson 4* and its compact version were more accurate and stable for evaluating vorticity magnitude from CMR velocity measurements compared to the commonly used eight-point circulation method.
Why the study?
Do derivate differentiation schemes (Richardson 4* and compact Richardson 4*) improve the accuracy of vorticity evaluation from CMR velocity measurements compared to direct differentiation schemes?
Population
Theoretical velocity field and in vivo cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) velocity measurements
Comparison
Derivate differentiation schemes for evaluating… vs Direct differentiation schemes
Design
Other
Authors
Loading...
Supports refined vorticity quantification in CMR research; leaves open translation to clinical post-processing.
Do derivate differentiation schemes (Richardson 4* and compact Richardson 4*) improve the accuracy of vorticity evaluation from CMR velocity measurements compared to direct differentiation schemes?
The Richardson 4* method and its compact version provide more accurate and stable vorticity evaluation from CMR velocity measurements than the commonly used eight-point circulation method.
García et al. (2013) studied Cardiovascular function. Richardson 4* and compact Richardson 4* methods vs. Eight-point circulation and Chapra methods was evaluated on Vorticity magnitude evaluation accuracy and stability. Richardson 4* and its compact version were more accurate and stable for evaluating vorticity magnitude from CMR velocity measurements compared to the commonly used eight-point circulation method.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: