ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Measuring liver fat fraction with complex-based chemical shift MRI: the effect of simplified sampling protocols on accuracy.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application and research progress of magnetic resonance proton density fat fraction in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a comprehensive review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Non-Invasive Imaging Methods to Evaluate Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease with Fat Quantification: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- MRI adipose tissue segmentation and quantification in R (RAdipoSeg).Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2022Article
- Free-breathing, non-ECG, simultaneous myocardial TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Sample strategies for quantification of hepatic fat fraction mean MRI in healthy cats during body weight gain.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of liver percentage fat fraction (%FF) using proton density fat fraction sequences is becoming increasingly accessible. Previous studies have tended to use multiple small ROIs that focus on Couinaud segments. In an effort to simplify day-to-day analysis, this study assesses the impact of using larger, elliptical ROIs focused on a single hepatic lobe. Additionally, we assess the impact of sampling fewer transhepatic slices when measuring %FF.
methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively obtained images from 34 volunteers using an IDEAL IQ sequence. Two observers independently measured %FF using three different protocols: freehand whole-liver ROI (fh-ROI), elliptical-ROI on the right lobe (rt-ROI) and elliptical-ROI on the left lobe (lt-ROI).
resultsInter-observer reliability for all measurements techniques was 'excellent' (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients 0.81-0.98). There was a significant difference (Paired Wilcoxon Test: p < 0.001) between the median %FF obtained using fh-ROI when compared to the rt-ROI method, the maximum mean difference between the two techniques was 2.79% (95% CI). For all sampling methods a Kruskall-Wallis analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mean %FF when the number of slices sampled was reduced from 11 to 1. The mean coefficient of variance increased when more slices were sampled (3 slices = 0.1, 11 slices = 0.17, p < 0.001).
conclusionSimplified ROIs focused on one hepatic lobe provide %FF measurements that are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate for use in clinical practice. Freehand whole-liver ROIs should be used in preference. A single freehand ROI measurement taken at the level of the hepatic hilum yields a %FF that is representative of the mean whole liver % FF. Multiple slices are needed to measure heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.