ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022
Liver-spleen contrast standardization of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging based on cross-calibration.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Assessment of Liver Function Using the Liver Enhancement Ratio on Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chronic Liver Disease.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Differentiating mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from atypical hepatocellular carcinoma using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging combined with serum markers in at-risk patients with hepatitis B virus.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liver-spleen contrast in the hepatobiliary phase highly depends on the devices used for liver function tests. This study aimed to develop and validate a method to convert liver-spleen contrast data acquired with another device to reference liver-spleen contrast data, using the regression line of phantom contrasts (i.e., cross-calibration). Methods: As cohort studies, two-dimensional gradient echo images of T1-weighted fat-suppression in the hepatobiliary phase were retrospectively obtained and analyzed for a total of 126 patients who underwent gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using four different magnetic resonance imaging scanner-coil combinations. The liver-spleen contrast measured from these images was converted into reference liver-spleen contrast using cross-calibration with purified water and gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid phantoms of 0.06, 0.14, 0.27, 0.63, 1.37, and 2.82 mM/L. At this point, the error of the regression lines with phantom contrasts was assessed and corrected. Lastly, the liver-spleen and converted liver-spleen contrasts, which are the values before and after cross-calibration respectively, were compared with reference liver-spleen contrast in three cases using different coils and magnetic resonance imaging scanners from a reference device. Results: Regarding the regression lines with phantom contrasts, the coefficient of determination was 0.99. Although regression lines with phantom contrasts tended to be 0.0105 lower in logarithmic contrasts than those with liver-spleen contrast, no significant difference was observed between the two lines (P=0.0612) by analysis of covariance. In the case of different coils, there was a significant difference between liver-spleen and reference liver-spleen contrasts (P<0.00001), but there was no significant difference between converted liver-spleen and reference liver-spleen contrasts (P=0.492). Moreover, the regression equation between converted liver-spleen and reference liver-spleen contrasts corresponded with an identity line. Likewise, in the two cases of different magnetic resonance imaging scanners, there was a significant difference between liver-spleen and reference liver-spleen contrast (both P<0.00001), but there was no significant difference between converted liver-spleen and reference liver-spleen contrast (P=0.923 and P=0.541). Conclusions: Cross-calibration using the precision and valid regression lines with phantom contrasts had high accuracy and utility.
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.