ArticleRadiological physics and technology2014
Diffusion analysis with triexponential function in hepatic steatosis.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence of Tri-Exponential Decay for Liver Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI: A Review of Published Results and Limitations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Modified Tri-Exponential Model for Multi-Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
- Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in the liver: comparison of mono-, bi- and tri-exponential modelling at 3.0-T.European radiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our purpose was to assess the influence of liver steatosis on diffusion by triexponential analysis. Thirty-three patients underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with multiple b values for perfusion-related diffusion, fast free diffusion, and slow restricted diffusion coefficients (D p, D f, D s) and fractions (F p, F f, F s). They also underwent dual-echo gradient-echo imaging for measurement of the hepatic fat fraction (HFF). Of these, 13 patients were included in the control group and 20 in the fatty liver group with HFF >5 %. The parameters of the two groups were compared by use of the Mann-Whitney U test. The relationships between diffusion coefficients and HFFs were assessed by use of the Pearson correlation. D p and D f were reduced significantly in the steatotic liver group compared with those in the control group (D p = 27.72 ± 6.61 × 10(-3) vs. 33.33 ± 6.47 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P = 0.0072; D f = 1.70 ± 0.53 × 10(-3) vs. 2.06 ± 0.40 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P = 0.0224). There were no significant differences in the other parameters between the two groups. Furthermore, D p and D f were correlated with HFF (P < 0.0001, r = -0.64 and P = 0.0008, r = -0.56, respectively). Decreased liver perfusion in steatosis caused the reduction in D p, and extracellular fat accumulation and intracellular fat droplets in steatosis led to the reduction in D f. Thus, the influence of hepatic steatosis should be taken into consideration when triexponential function analysis is used for assessment of diffuse liver disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24092461What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.