Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38653813›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Comparison of the efficacy of the gadoxetic acid MRI-derived relative enhancement index (REI) and functional liver imaging score (FLIS) in predicting liver function: validation with Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade.

Uluhan Eryuruk, Merve Nur Tasdemir, Halil Ibrahim Karasu, Serdar Aslan

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Uluhan EryurukDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey. uluhaneryuruk@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-621X
Merve Nur TasdemirDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1028-8135
Halil Ibrahim KarasuDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6082-0854
Serdar AslanDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2950-8767
Giresun University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared the predictive performance of the relative enhancement index (REI) derived from gadoxetic acid (GA)-enhanced MRI with that of the functional liver imaging score (FLIS) in estimating liver function among patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) or liver cirrhosis (LC) by validating them with the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively examined 166 patients (79 women, 87 men; 57.4 years) who were diagnosed with LC or CLD and underwent GA-enhanced MRI between August 2020 and September 2023. The enhancement ratio (ER) is calculated using the formula: ER = [hepatobiliary phase liver signal (SI HBP20)-precontrast liver signal (SI pre)]/SI pre. The REI is calculated using the formula: REI = Liver Volume (LV) × ER. FLIS was assigned from the sum of three HBP image features, each scored between 0 and 2: liver parenchymal enhancement, biliary contrast excretion, and portal vein sign. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine the optimal cutoff values of ER, REI, and FLIS in differentiating between ALBI grades. The area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for REI and FLIS to distinguish the ALBI grades. Spearman's rank correlation was used to evaluate the ER, REI, and FLIS correlations between the ALBI grades. To evaluate inter-reader reliability for LV, ER, REI, and FLIS, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used.

resultsROC curve analysis showed that the optimal cutoff value of REI for predicting ALBI Grade 1 was 899-905 for readers 1 and 2 and 461-477 for ALBI Grade 3, respectively. REI performed best in predicting ALBI Grade 1, achieving an accuracy range of 94%-92.2%, sensitivity of 94.9%-94.1%, and specificity of 91.7%-87.5% for readers 1 and 2, respectively. All parameters showed high accuracy in distinguishing ALBI Grade 3 from other grades. However, REI outperformed the others, showing an accuracy range of 98.8%-97.6%, sensitivity of 94.4%-94.4%, and specificity of 99.3%-98% for readers 1 and 2, respectively. REI showed the best and very strong correlation with ALBI for both readers.

conclusionREI showed a very strong correlation with the ALBI grades for assessing liver function. It outperformed FLIS in predicting the ALBI grades, indicating its potential as a radiologic tool comparable to or better than FLIS in predicting liver function, especially given its dependence on liver volume.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaGadolinium DTPAMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedBilirubinFemaleHumansImage EnhancementLiverLiver CirrhosisLiver DiseasesLiver Function TestsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsBilirubinContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPASerum AlbuminFunctional liver imagingLiver volumeMRIRelative enhancement ratio

Identifiers

PMID38653813
OpenAlexW4395028867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.