ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility and reference ranges of primary sclerosing cholangitis specific biomarkers from quantitative MRCP.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free-breathing Three-dimensional MR Cholangiopancreatography Using Centric k-space Encoding Improved Gallbladder Visualization: A Prospective Study.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026Article
- Periductal iron-corrected T1 is a predictor of adverse outcomes in large-duct primary sclerosing cholangitis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Quantitative MRCP as Part of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis Standard of Care in the National Health Service in England: A Feasibility Assessment Among Hepatologists.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative MRCP-derived metrics generated from MRCP + software, designed for assessing biliary tree health.
methodsMetric accuracy was assessed using a 3D-printed phantom containing 20 tubes with sinusoidally-varying diameters, simulating strictures and dilatations along ducts. Data from 80 participants (60 healthy volunteers and 20 with liver disease) was analysed in total. Repeatability and reproducibility of the quantitative metrics were assessed on Siemens, GE and Philips scanners at both 1.5T and 3T. All subjects were scanned on a Siemens Prisma 3T scanner which acted as the reference scanner. A subset of these participants also underwent scanning on the remaining scanners. Data from healthy volunteers was used to estimate the natural range of measured values (reference ranges). The reproducibility coefficient (RC) of 7 commonly reported quantitative metrics were compared between healthy controls and published values in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) patients.
resultsThe phantom analysis confirmed measurement accuracy with absolute bias of 0.0-0.1 for strictures and 0.1-0.2 for dilatations across all scanners (95% limits of agreement within ± 1.0). In vivo, RCs for the quantitative MRCP-derived metrics across the scanners ranged from: 12.4-25.4 for total number of ducts; 4.9-7.9 for number of dilatations; 3.3-6.5 for number of strictures; 4.6-9.8 mm for total length of dilatations; 26.5-51.7 mm for total length of strictures; and 4.4-6.8 for number of ducts with a stricture or dilatation. Repeatability on the same scanner was generally better than comparisons across scanners. Six metrics demonstrated sufficient cross-scanner reproducibility to distinguish healthy volunteers from PSC patients.
conclusionThe precision of quantitative MRCP-derived metrics were sufficient to differentiate PSC and healthy subjects and should be well suited for multi-centre trials and assessment of biliary tree health.
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.