ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Validity of an automated screening Dixon technique for quantifying hepatic steatosis in living liver donors.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-Transplant Hepatic Steatosis: A Condition Not to Overlook.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective study aimed to evaluate the validity of an automated screening Dixon (e-DIXON) technique for quantifying hepatic steatosis in living liver-donor patients by comparison with magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) as a reference standard.
methodsA total of 285 living liver-donor candidates were examined with the e-DIXON technique and single-voxel MRS to assess hepatic steatosis and iron deposition between January 2014 and February 2019. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the e-DIXON technique for hepatic steatosis were calculated. The mean fat signal fractions obtained in MRS were compared between the donors diagnosed with hepatic steatosis and the normal group. The mean R2 values of donors with or without hepatic siderosis also were compared.
resultsThe e-DIXON technique diagnosed normal in 133 (47%), fat in 124 (44%), iron in one (0.4%), and a combination of both fat and iron in 27 (10%) donors. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for diagnosing hepatic steatosis were 94%, 70%, 64%, and 96%, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean fat signal fraction obtained in MRS between the steatosis and normal groups (p < 0.001), but R2 values were not significantly different between siderosis and normal groups (p = 0.11). The e-DIXON technique showed a strong correlation with MRS in fat measurement (r
conclusionThe e-DIXON technique reliably screens for hepatic steatosis but may not accurate for detecting hepatic iron deposition.
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.