ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Combining T1rho and advanced diffusion MRI for noninvasively staging liver fibrosis: an experimental study in rats.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the value of imaging parameters derived from T1 relaxation times in the rotating frame (T1ρ or T1rho), diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in assessment of liver fibrosis in rats and propose an optimal diagnostic model based on multiparametric MRI.
methodsThirty rats were divided into one control group and four fibrosis experimental groups (n = 6 for each group). Liver fibrosis was induced by administering thioacetamide (TAA) for 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. T1ρ, mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD), perfusion fraction (f), true diffusion coefficient (D), and pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*) were measured and compared among different fibrosis stages. An optimal diagnostic model was established and the diagnostic efficiency was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsThe mean AUC values, sensitivity, and specificity of T1ρ and MD derived from DKI across all liver fibrosis stages were comparable but much higher than those of other imaging parameters (0.954, 92.46, 91.85 for T1ρ; 0.949, 92.52, 91.24 for MD). The model combining T1ρ and MD exhibited better diagnostic performance with higher AUC values than any individual method for staging liver fibrosis (≥ F1: 1.000 (0.884-1.000); ≥ F2: 0.935 (0.782-0.992); ≥ F3: 0.982 (0.852-1.000); F4: 0.986 (0.859-1.000)).
conclusionAmong the evaluated imaging parameters, T1ρ and MD were superior for differentiating varying liver fibrosis stages. The model combining T1ρ and MD was promising to be a credible diagnostic biomarker to detect and accurately stage liver fibrosis.
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.