ArticlePloS one2025
Cross-field strength and multi-vendor reliability of MagDensity for MRI-based quantitative breast density analysis.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast density (BD) is a significant risk factor for breast cancer, yet current assessment methods lack automation, quantification, and cross-platform consistency. This study aims to evaluate the reliability and cross-platform consistency of MagDensity, a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based quantitative BD measure, across different imaging platforms.
methodsTen healthy volunteers participated in this prospective study, undergoing fat-water MRI scans on three scanners: 3T Siemens Prisma, 3T Siemens Biograph mMR, and 1.5T GE Signa. Great effort was made to schedule all scans within a narrow three-hour window on the same day to minimize any potential intra- or inter-day variations, requiring substantial logistical coordination. BD was assessed using the MagDensity technique, which included combining magnitude and phase images, applying a fat-water separation technique, employing an automated whole-breast segmentation algorithm, and quantifying the volumetric water fraction. Agreement between measures across scanners was analyzed using mean differences, two-tailed t-tests, Pearson's correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsMagDensity measures obtained from the two 3T Siemens scanners demonstrated no statistically significant differences, with high correlation (Pearson's r > 0.99) and negligible mean differences (< 0.2%). Cross-platform comparison between the 3T Siemens and the 1.5T GE scanners showed larger mean differences (< 4.2%). However, after applying linear calibration, these variations were reduced to within ±0.2%, with strong inter-scanner correlation maintained (Pearson's r > 0.97).
conclusionMagDensity showed strong intra-vendor consistency and promising cross-platform reliability after leave-one-out calibration. While full standardization remains a long-term goal, these findings provide clear evidence that scanner-related variability can be effectively mitigated through calibration. This technique offers a step further toward more consistent MRI-based BD quantification and may help enable broader clinical implementation.
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.