ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Unbiased and reproducible liver MRI-PDFF estimation using a scan protocol-informed deep learning method.
Article in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Smart Devices in Metabolic Dysfunction-associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2026Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in the intersection of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and cardiovascular diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate proton density fat fraction (PDFF) from chemical shift encoded (CSE) MR images using a deep learning (DL)-based method that is precise and robust to different MR scanners and acquisition echo times (TEs).
methodsVariable echo times neural network (VET-Net) is a two-stage framework that first estimates nonlinear variables of the CSE-MR signal model, to posteriorly estimate water/fat signal components using the least-squares method. VET-Net incorporates a vector with TEs as an auxiliary input, therefore enabling PDFF calculation with any TE setting. A single-site liver CSE-MRI dataset (188 subjects, 4146 axial slices) was considered, which was split into training (150 subjects), validation (18), and testing (20) subsets. Testing subjects were scanned using several protocols with different TEs, which we then used to measure the PDFF reproducibility coefficient (RDC) at two regions of interest (ROIs): the right posterior and left hepatic lobes. An open-source multi-site and multi-vendor fat-water phantom dataset was also used for PDFF bias assessment.
resultsVET-Net showed RDCs of 1.71% and 1.04% on the right posterior and left hepatic lobes, respectively, across different TEs, which was comparable to a reference graph cuts-based method (RDCs = 1.71% and 0.86%). VET-Net also showed a smaller PDFF bias (-0.55%) than graph cuts (0.93%) when tested on a multi-site phantom dataset. Reproducibility (1.94% and 1.59%) and bias (-2.04%) were negatively affected when the auxiliary TE input was not considered.
conclusionVET-Net provided unbiased and precise PDFF estimations using CSE-MR images from different hardware vendors and different TEs, outperforming conventional DL approaches. KEY POINTS: Question Reproducibility of liver PDFF DL-based approaches on different scan protocols or manufacturers is not validated. Findings VET-Net showed a PDFF bias of -0.55% on a multi-site phantom dataset, and RDCs of 1.71% and 1.04% at two liver ROIs. Clinical relevance VET-Net provides efficient, in terms of scan and processing times, and unbiased PDFF estimations across different MR scanners and scan protocols, and therefore it can be leveraged to expand the use of MRI-based liver fat quantification to assess hepatic steatosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39500799What 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.