ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Assessment of agreement between manual and automated processing of liver MR elastography for shear stiffness estimation in children and young adults with autoimmune liver disease.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- KASL clinical practice guidelines for noninvasive tests to assess liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2024Guideline
- Practical approach to quantitative liver and pancreas MRI in children.Pediatric radiology · 2025Review
- Association Between MR Elastography Liver Stiffness and Histologic Liver Fibrosis in Children and Young Adults With Autoimmune Liver Disease.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2024Article
- Longitudinal changes in quantitative magnetic resonance imaging metrics in children and young adults with autoimmune liver disease.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare automated versus standard of care manual processing of 2D gradient recalled echo (GRE) liver MR Elastography (MRE) in children and young adults. MATERIALS AND
methods2D GRE liver MRE data from research liver MRI examinations performed as part of an autoimmune liver disease registry between March 2017 and March 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. All liver MRE data were acquired at 1.5 T with 60 Hz mechanical vibration frequency. For manual processing, two independent readers (R1, R2) traced regions of interest on scanner generated shear stiffness maps. Automated processing was performed using MREplus+ (Resoundant Inc.) using 90% (A90) and 95% (A95) confidence masks. Agreement was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. Classification performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analyses.
resultsIn 65 patients with mean age of 15.5 ± 3.8 years (range 8-23 years; 35 males) median liver shear stiffness was 2.99 kPa (mean 3.55 ± 1.69 kPa). Inter-reader agreement for manual processing was very strong (ICC = 0.99, mean bias = 0.01 kPa [95% limits of agreement (LoA): - 0.41 to 0.44 kPa]). Correlation between manual and A95 automated processing was very strong (R1: ICC = 0.988, mean bias = 0.13 kPa [95% LoA: - 0.40 to 0.68 kPa]; R2: ICC = 0.987, mean bias = 0.13 kPa [95% LoA: - 0.44 to 0.69 kPa]). Automated measurements were perfectly replicable (ICC = 1.0; mean bias = 0 kPa).
conclusionLiver shear stiffness values obtained using automated processing showed excellent agreement with manual processing. Automated processing of liver MRE was perfectly replicable.
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.