Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128694›Full record

Trial reportAbdominal radiology (New York)2019

Inter-reader agreement of magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction and its longitudinal change in a clinical trial of adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

Jonathan C Hooker, Gavin Hamilton, Charlie C Park, Steven Liao, Tanya Wolfson, Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy, Cheng William Hong, Adrija Mamidipalli, Anthony Gamst, Rohit Loomba and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan C HookerLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Gavin HamiltonLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Charlie C ParkLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Steven LiaoLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Tanya WolfsonComputational and Applied Statistics Laboratory (CASL), San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Soudabeh Fazeli DehkordyLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Cheng William HongLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Adrija MamidipalliLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA.
Anthony GamstComputational and Applied Statistics Laboratory (CASL), San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Rohit LoombaDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Claude B SirlinLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, CA, 92093-0888, USA. csirlin@ucsd.edu.
University of California, San Diego · USSan Diego Supercomputer Center · US

Funding

Traning Clinical Scientists in Radiological ImagingT32EB005970 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Eric Y Chang, Rebecca Ann Rakow-Penner · 2007 to 2026
$3.2M
MR Imaging of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseR01DK075128 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SIRLIN, CLAUDE B · 2006 to 2010
$2.4M
Technical Development of Quantitative Biomarkers of Fatty Liver Disease with MRIR01DK083380 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B. · 2010 to 2013
$1.2M
Evolution of Quantitative MRI Biomarkers of Metabolic Syndrome During PubertyK24DK102595 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI REEDER, SCOTT B. · 2014 to 2018
$927k
GENETIC EPIDEMIOLOGY OF NONALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER DISEASEK23DK090303 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LOOMBA, ROHIT · 2011 to 2014
$721k
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB005970NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK090303NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK102595NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK075128NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK083380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine the inter-reader agreement of magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and its longitudinal change in a clinical trial of adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). STUDY TYPE: We performed a secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of a bile acid sequestrant in 45 adults with NASH. A six-echo spoiled gradient-recalled-echo magnitude-based fat quantification technique was performed at 3 T. Three independent readers measured MRI-PDFF by placing one primary and two additional regions of interest (ROIs) in each segment at both time points. Cross-sectional agreement between the three readers was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficients of variation (CV). Additionally, we used Bland-Altman analyses to examine pairwise agreement between the three readers at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and for longitudinal change.

resultsUsing all ROIs by all readers, mean PDFF at baseline, at EOT, and mean change in PDFF was 16.1%, 16.0%, and 0.07%, respectively. The 27-ROI PDFF measurements had 0.998 ICC and 1.8% CV at baseline, 0.998 ICC and 1.8% CV at EOT, and 0.997 ICC for longitudinal change. The 9-ROI PDFF measurements had corresponding values of 0.997 and 2.6%, 0.996 and 2.4%, and 0.994. Using 27 ROIs, the magnitude of the bias between readers for whole-liver PDFF measurement ranged from 0.03% to 0.06% points at baseline, 0.01% to 0.07% points at EOT, and 0.01% to 0.02% points for longitudinal change.

conclusionInter-reader agreement for measuring whole-liver PDFF and its longitudinal change is high. 9-ROI measurements have only slightly lower agreement than 27-ROI measurements.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLiverLongitudinal StudiesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNon-alcoholic Fatty Liver DiseaseObserver VariationProspective StudiesProtonsProtonsInter-reader agreementLiverProton density fat fraction (PDFF)Quantitative imaging biomarkerRegion of interestReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID30128694
PMCPMC6382605
OpenAlexW2888348731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.