ArticlePloS one2021
A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Study of Consistency on 1.5-T to 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conversion.Current medical imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVolumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) measurements were made using the HepaFat-Scan® technique at 1.5T and 3T to determine the agreement between the measurements obtained at the two fields.
methodsSixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age 50.92 ± 6.56yrs) and thirty healthy volunteers (50% male, mean age 48.63 ± 6.32yrs) were scanned on 1.5T Aera and 3T Skyra (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) MRI scanners on the same day using the HepaFat-Scan® gradient echo protocol with modification of echo times for 3T (TEs 2.38, 4.76, 7.14 ms at 1.5T and 1.2, 2.4, 3.6 ms at 3T). The 3T analyses were performed independently of the 1.5T analyses by a different analyst, blinded from the 1.5T results. Data were analysed for agreement and bias using Bland-Altman methods and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). A second cohort of 17 participants underwent interstudy repeatability assessment of VLFF measured by HepaFat-Scan® at 3T.
resultsA small, but statistically significant mean bias of 0.48% was observed between 3T and 1.5T with 95% limits of agreement -2.2% to 3.2% VLFF. The ICC for agreement between field strengths was 0.983 (95% CI 0.972-0.989). In the repeatability cohort studied at 3T the repeatability coefficient was 4.2%. The ICC for agreement was 0.971 (95% CI 0.921-0.989).
conclusionThere is minimal bias and excellent agreement between the measures of VLFF using the HepaFat-Scan® at 1.5 and 3T. The test retest repeatability coefficient at 3T is comparable to the 95% limits of agreement between 1.5T and 3T suggesting that measurements can be made interchangeably between field strengths.
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.