ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Multi-Center, Multi-Vendor Validation of Simultaneous MRI-Based Proton Density Fat Fraction and R2* Mapping Using a Combined Proton Density Fat Fraction-R2* Phantom.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Vendor Validation of Proton Density Fat Fraction and TJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Clinical significance and future applications of standardized imaging parameters for assessing paraspinal muscle fatty infiltration in lumbar degenerative disease: a narrative review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Comparison of Manual Multi-ROI, Single-Location, and Volumetric Fat Fraction Measurements for Hepatic Steatosis Using MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Correlation analysis and diagnostic performance of CT/MRI fat quantification parameters in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Functional, Structural, and AI-Based MRI Analysis: A Comprehensive Review of Recent Advances.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Quantitative MRI for Early Treatment Response in MASLD.Radiology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFat and iron deposition confound measurements of R2* and proton density fat fraction (PDFF), respectively, yet their combined impact on reproducibility is poorly understood. PURPOSE: To evaluate the multi-center, multi-vendor reproducibility of PDFF and R2* quantification using a PDFF-R2* phantom. STUDY TYPE: Prospective multi-center, phantom study. PHANTOM: Commercial PDFF-R2* phantom with simultaneously controlled combination of PDFF (0%-30%) and R2* (50-600 s FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5-T and 3-T, three-dimensional (3D) multi-echo, spoiled-gradient-echo sequences, in four different centers, each with a different vendor. ASSESSMENT: Two acquisition protocols were used, optimized for moderate R2* (Protocol 1) and high R2* (Protocol 2), respectively. The phantom was imaged multiple times at one of the centers to assess its stability. STATISTICAL TESTS: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression analysis, reproducibility coefficient (RDC) and repeatability coefficient (RC).
resultsExcellent agreement was observed for PDFF measurements between centers, vendors, field strengths, and protocols (ICC = 0.97). Stratified by protocol, excellent agreement was observed, with ICC = 0.96 (RDC = 6.2%) for Protocol 1 and ICC = 0.99 (RDC = 3.8%) for Protocol 2. Increased variability in PDFF measurements was observed with increasing PDFF and especially with higher R2*. Excellent agreement was observed for R2* between centers, vendors, field strengths, and protocols (ICC = 0.99). Stratified by protocol, strong agreement was observed, with ICC = 0.988 (RDC = 66.7 s DATA
conclusionExcellent PDFF and R2* reproducibility was observed across centers, vendors, field strengths, and acquisition protocols. Reproducibility decreased slightly with increasing PDFF and R2*, especially for PDFF measurements in vials with high R2*. EVIDENCE LEVEL: N/A. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.