ArticlePloS one2025
Proof of concept pilot study to assess the utility of magnetic resonance extra-cellular volume quantification to diagnose advanced liver disease in people with Cystic Fibrosis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent diagnostic tools are limited in their ability to diagnose cystic fibrosis liver disease (CFLD) as disease is often focal in nature. Magnetic resonance extracellular volume quantification (MRI ECV) in the liver may have diagnostic utility in CFLD as a more selective liver volume is assessed and can be performed using equipment readily available in clinical practice on a standard MRI protocol.
methodsHealthy volunteers (HV), CF participants with no liver disease (CF-noLD) and CF participants with cirrhosis (CF-C) aged 18 years and above had MRI ECV measured using a 3T Siemens scanner. An additional retrospective analysis was performed to calculate MRI ECV in individuals who had available images obtained using a 1.5T Siemens scanner from a previous study.
results16 individuals had MRI ECV measured using a 3T Siemens scanner. Mean (SD) MRI ECV was 0.316 (0.058) for HV (n = 5), 0.297 (0.034) for CF-noLD (n = 5) and 0.388 (0.067) for CF-C (n = 6 ). Post-hoc analysis showed a significant difference between CF-noLD and CF-C (p = 0.046). Of 18 individuals with available images using a 1.5T scanner, mean (SD) MRI ECV was 0.269 (0.048) in HV (n = 8), 0.310 (0.037) in CF-noLD (n = 8) and 0.362 (0.063) in CF-C (n = 2).
conclusionsLiver MRI ECV quantification was feasible in adults with CF with no significant difference in results between 1.5T and 3T obtained images suggesting applicability across different types of MRI scanner. A higher MRI ECV was demonstrated in CF participants with cirrhosis suggesting potential utility as a diagnostic tool for those with advanced CFLD. Further evaluation in larger cohorts is warranted.
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.