ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2020
Diffusion kurtosis imaging in liver: a preliminary reproducibility study in healthy volunteers.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monoexponential and advanced diffusion-weighted imaging for hepatic fibrosis staging based on high inter-examiner reliability.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- Can DKI-MRI predict recurrence and invasion of peritumoral zone of hepatocellular carcinoma after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Article
- Microstructural white matter alterations in Alzheimer's disease and amnestic mild cognitive impairment and its diagnostic value based on diffusion kurtosis imaging: a tract-based spatial statistics study.Brain imaging and behavior · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically test the reproducibility of DKI technique in normal liver and report a complete set of DKI measurement data. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-two healthy volunteers were examined with liver DKI twice on the GE 3.0 T MRI scanner and reviewed by three professional experts. DKI-derived parameters fractional anisotropy of kurtosis (FAk), mean diffusivity (Md), axial diffusivity (Da), radial diffusivity (Dr), mean kurtosis (Mk), axial kurtosis (Ka), and radial kurtosis (Kr) in eight segments divided by Couinaud octagonal method were collected. Inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the agreement between three experts. For each expert, the reproducibility of twice scans was evaluated by Bland-Altman method. Multivariate analysis of variance was to explore the regional distribution characteristics of DKI-derived parameters, and showed with box-plot graph.
resultsUsing ICC analysis, except for FAk (ICC 0.312, 0.307), other DKI metric values showed high reproducibility (0.716 < ICC < 0.907) between three experts for each of two DKI measurements. With Bland-Altman method, liver segment 5 (S5) showed the best reproducibility between two DKI measurement, and the reproducibility of segment 4 (S4) was the worst. The reproducibility of the right lobe was significantly higher than the left lobe. The values of diffusion metrics (Md, Da, and Dr) and kurtosis metrics (Mk, Ka, and Kr) existed significantly difference between the right and left hepatic lobes.
conclusionDKI has shown excellent reproducibility in liver imaging. The range of values for multiple DKI parameters, derived from the normal liver, was reported, and may provide data reference for further clinical DKI applications. Additionally, DKI technique is a non-invasive method to reflect the perfusion or structural differences between the left and right hepatic lobes from the molecular level.
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.