ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2021
Survey of water proton longitudinal relaxation in liver in vivo.
Review in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Longitudinal relaxation rate (Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Pooled it
- OSIPI: A Significant Step Towards Reproducible MR Biomarkers.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Assessment of hepatic transporter function in rats using dynamic gadoxetate-enhanced MRI: a reproducibility study.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Bias, Repeatability and Reproducibility of Liver TJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the variability, and preferred values, for normal liver longitudinal water proton relaxation rate R
methodsValues of mean R
resultsAfter exclusions, 116 publications (143 studies) remained, representing apparently normal liver in 3392 humans, 99 mice and 249 rats. Seventeen field strengths were included between 0.04 T and 9.4 T. Older studies tended to report higher between-subject coefficients of variation (CoV), but for studies published since 1992, the median between-subject CoV was 7.4%, and in half of those studies, measured R DISCUSSION: The within-study between-subject CoV incorporates repeatability error and true between-subject variation. Between-study variation also incorporates between-population variation, together with bias from interactions between methodology and physiology. While quantitative relaxometry ultimately requires validation with phantoms and analysis of propagation of errors, this survey allows investigators to compare their own R
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.